The Effectiveness of Technology Integration in a Metropolitan Elementary Mathematics

Program: Mad Dog Math

Dissertation

Submitted to Northcentral University

Graduate Faculty of the School of Education

in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

by

MIRIAM COHEN

Prescott Valley, Arizona

August 2012
Copyright 2012

Miriam Cohen

ii
 APPROVAL PAGE

Exploring the Effectiveness of Technology Integration in a Metropolitan

Elementary Mathematics Program: Mad Dog Math

by

Miriam Cohen

Approved by:

____________________________________ ____________________
Chair: Dana Sparkman Cleghorn, Ph. D. Date

Member: Mark G. Kelso, Ph. D

Member: Ralph E. Lee, Ed.D.

Certified by:

___________________________________ _____________________
School Dean: Cindy Knott, Ph. D. Date

iii
 Abstract

The outcome of American students’ performances during international comparisons

consistently scoring inadequately in mathematics exposes the crisis of deficient

mathematics achievement thus causing deep concerns. Learners who acquire a strong

theoretical foundation in mathematics at the primary level thrived later in more advanced

level mathematics curriculum; thus, instructors have pursued methods and techniques to

improve mathematics achievement, particularly among primary grade school students.

Research has shown that additional scholastic enhancement beyond conventional

classroom instruction is crucial for kindergarten through fifth grade students. The

purpose of this study was to determine the usefulness of a specific computer assisted

instruction supplemental math program, Mad Dog Math (MDM), on students’ math

achievement as compared to students using only conventional teaching methods applied

at a local elementary school located in Southern California. A quasi-experimental design

was utilized. The study was intended to identify to what degree, if any, the use of the

computer-assisted instruction software called Mad Dog Math was beneficial in improving

students’ mathematics achievement. Two classes of second and third grades, totaling

81students ranging from seven to nine years old, contributed to the study. An

experimental group (n = 39) and a control group (n = 42) participated in the study. Both

pretest and posttest using the California Standard Test (CST), mathematics questions,

were administered. To adjust the mean posttest scores for any preliminary difference

between the groups on the pretest, an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was employed.

The findings of this study revealed that after accounting for pretest scores, there was a

significant difference between the control and experimental groups on posttest scores,

iv
F(1, 27) = 14.16, p < .0005 with a low effect size, partial eta squared = .15. However,

after accounting for pretest scores, there was no significant interaction effect of MDM

and gender, F(1,76) = 4.14, p = .06, with a low effect size (partial eta squared = .001).

Recommendations for future research include the incorporation of larger population and

stratification of grade levels, examine the effects of Computer- Assisted Instruction (CAI)

with students with learning disabilities, and to include qualitative elements such as

teacher-student perceptions to expand understanding of CAI findings.

v
 Acknowledgements

The ultimate glory goes to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. For we know that in all

things God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according

to His purpose ~ Romans 8:28. I dedicate this project to Him who loves me and gave His

life for me. I am grateful!

David (Daddy): You are my inspiration and my very best friend. You mean the whole

world to me. Thank you for being gracious towards me during the many mood changes

that I went through during this grueling process. Your faith in the Lord and in my

dedication to complete this journey never waiver and I am forever thankful for your

continued support in my academic endeavors. Thank you, Daddy, for the many nights

that you stayed up and assisted me in figuring out how to put my TOC (Table of

Contents) together. It was hard but you made it bearable. Next to Jesus, you were my

source of strength and I thank the Lord for blessing me with an incredible husband. I am

grateful!

Angelica and Reagan: Your love and support gave me the strength to endure every step

of the way. I hope that my determination and task-oriented behavior have inspired you to

work hard and smart. I wanted to show you that it is only “With God all things are

possible”~ Matthew 19:26. For both of you, the sky is the limit! Thank you, my

darlings, for allowing me to spend all the hours that it took to complete my CP, DP, and

DM. I am grateful!

Dr. Dana Cleghorn: You are fabulous! But of course, you already know that. You

ROCK based on what many learners say about you on the discussion board. Personally, I

would have never reached this level of success had I not been under your guidance. Your

vi
professionalism, dedication, and gentle spirit helped ease the many fears that went

through my mind when I first took on this huge project. The entire doctorate process

took me 5 years to complete but at the end, we developed a friendship that provided

encouragement beyond words. I am grateful!

Dr. Ralph Lee: I have requested for you to be on my committee because I have great

respect for you and your work. I was never disappointed. Thank you for taking me on

and always encouraging me and believing in me. I am grateful!

Dr. Mark Kelso: Thank you for coming “on board” in the middle of things and making

my committee complete. Your “fine tooth comb” approach in reviewing my work and the

speedy turnaround of my concept paper, dissertation proposal, and dissertation

manuscript raised the bar and motivated me to reach for the prize. I am grateful!

Julie Kotoff: Your friendship is truly precious to me. Thank you for being the

best editor ever! You have given up many hours of the night to read and edit my work

even when some of my writings did not make sense at the time; you never gave up on

me. I pray that my research work will help Mad Dog Math to become a common

household name. I am grateful!

Dennis Waterman: Your obedience to Jesus made it possible for me to work with style.

The brand new laptop computer and printer were heaven sent and without them I would

not have been able to graduate this year. I would have been stuck with a dinosaur that

took forever to upload. Research would have been impossible. I am grateful!

Thai Ho: My newest friend. I am thankful to the Lord that our paths have crossed.

Sharing your expertise in statistics was only the beginning of our friendship. Thank you

for your kindness and the opportunity that you gave me to introduce you to Jesus. I pray

vii
that you will someday come to know Him as the Way, the Truth, and the Life. I am

grateful!

Friends and Family: When I initially started this journey, I was fearful about many

things. Today, I can boldly say that I am becoming more and more fearless every day.

The only fear I care to hold on is the fear of the Lord, which is the beginning of wisdom

~ Proverbs 9:10. It was your support and encouragement that kept me going. I am

grateful!

viii
 Table of Contents

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... xi

List of Figures ................................................................................................................... xii

Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1

Background ..................................................................................................................... 2
Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 6
Purpose............................................................................................................................ 7
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................... 8
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 10
Hypotheses .................................................................................................................... 12
Nature of the Study ....................................................................................................... 12
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 13
Definitions .................................................................................................................... 15
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 16

Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 18

Historical Perspectives of Mathematics Education ...................................................... 19
Gender Differences in Learning Mathematics .............................................................. 22
Historical Perspective of Technology Integration in Education ................................... 31
Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) ........................................................................... 34
Effectiveness of CAI in Mathematics ........................................................................... 38
Types of CAI ................................................................................................................ 40
Differences between Traditional Classroom and CAI .................................................. 47
Implementing CAI in the Curriculum ........................................................................... 49
Mastery Learning and Active Learning ........................................................................ 53
Computer Software Programs ....................................................................................... 58
The History and Characteristics of the Mad Dog Math Program ................................. 64
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 65

Chapter 3: Research Method............................................................................................. 67

Research Method and Design ....................................................................................... 69
Participants.................................................................................................................... 70
Materials/Instruments ................................................................................................... 71
Operational Definition of Variables ............................................................................. 74
Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis ................................................................... 75
Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations .................................... 76
Ethical Assurances ........................................................................................................ 78
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 81

ix
Chapter 4: Findings ........................................................................................................... 83
Results ........................................................................................................................... 83
Evaluation of Findings .................................................................................................. 97
Summary ....................................................................................................................... 99

Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions ...................................... 101

Implications ................................................................................................................ 103
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 107
Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 109

References ....................................................................................................................... 111

Appendices...................................................................................................................... 131
Appendix A: Math Pretest/Posttest Grade 2 ............................................................... 132
Appendix B: Math Pretest/Posttest Grade 3 ............................................................... 144
Appendix C: Informed Consent .................................................................................. 155
Appendix D: Parent/Researcher Committment Agreement ........................................ 156
Appendix E: Child Assent Form ................................................................................. 157

x
 List of Tables

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of Pretest and Posttest Scores ........................................... 85

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for Experimental and Control Groups .............................. 86
Table 3 Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk Normality Tests of Posttest Score ....... 92
Table 4 The Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances .............................................. 93
Table 5 Test of Between Subjects ...................................................................................... 93
Table 6 Descriptive Statistics: MDM Gender - Dependent Variable: Posttest Score ...... 96

xi
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Control group mathematics pretest score distribution histogram. ..................... 86

Figure 2. Experimental group mathematics pretest score distribution histogram. ........... 87
Figure 3. Control group mathematics posttest score distribution histogram. ................... 88
Figure 4. Experimental group mathematics posttest score distribution histogram. .......... 88
Figure 5. Normal Q-Q Plot of control group pretest. ........................................................ 89
Figure 6. Normal Q-Q Plot of experimental group pretest. .............................................. 90
Figure 7. Normal Q-Q Plot of control group posttest. ...................................................... 90
Figure 8. Normal Q-Q Plot of experimental group posttest.............................................. 91
Figure 9. G Graph Mean pretest scores of control and experimental groups. .................. 94
Figure 10. G Graph Mean posttest scores of control and experimental groups. ............... 94

xii
 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

Exposing the crisis of deficient mathematics achievement in elementary schools

across the nation, the authors of Third International Mathematics and Science Study—

Repeat revealed the shortcomings of mathematics in the United States when measured

against other developed countries (Gonzales, Williams, Jocelyn, Roey, Kastberg, &

Brenwald, 2007; National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008). Additionally, 20% of

elementary students necessitate supplementary academic reinforcement beyond regular

classroom education (Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2005). Traditionally integrated

into the kindergarten through second grade curriculum are addition and subtraction

number combinations and fact retrieval. By the beginning of third grade, emerging

learners are on the road to automatic retrieval of these number combinations (Hudson &

Miller, 2006). Then they are ready to move on to becoming automatic in their

multiplication and division facts. Consequently, an urgent demand for remediation

occurs when learners continue to display great difficulty with number combination and

fact retrieval skills at the beginning of third grade level. One approach for remediating

fact retrieval inadequacy is computer-assisted instruction.

Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) is a subject of interest in the field of

education. It is valuable to many education stakeholders because many students have

computers available to use at home and is made accessible to learners who do not have

availability of the Internet at home. Computer-assisted instruction has the capability to

be a significant tool in developing and enhancing math instruction (Roblyer, 2008). The

computer can be viewed as able to perform the task of a specific influential facilitator

(Beck, 2005). Interest is increasing about how learners relate to computer-based teaching
 2

techniques as CAI becomes progressively integrated into classrooms (Nguyen & Kulm,

2005).

Many educators focus on the use of unconventional instructional methods to

enhance math instruction. The use of computers and the Internet make it feasible to

increase students’ math academic success utilizing new approaches of instruction

delivery (Aydin, 2005; Roblyer & Doering, 2009). Computer-assisted instruction is a

practical methodology that is effective in accommodating learner needs as well as

improving student math accomplishment (Traynor, 2003). Integrating technology in the

classroom stimulates learners to become dynamically engaged in learning thus promotes

higher-order learning outcomes (Martindale, Cates, & Qian, 2005; Gayle, 2006).

Moreover, technology can be an inspiring aspect and an effective tool for all

learners, especially in elementary grades (Martindale, Pearson, Curda, & Pilcher, 2005).

A wide variety of course contents such as exercise, drill, tutorial, practice, and virtual

reality are made possible through the use of computer technology (Mahmood, 2004). All

of the characterizations of CAI support the idea that the computer takes the part of a

teacher and conveys teaching through various modalities and approaches (Lewis, 2010).

In this chapter, a historical view of CAI is explored; the framework for CAI is presented,

hurdles encountered by educators are identified, and a synopsis of the selected research

method and design is described. This quantitative research is designed to evaluate the

effectiveness of one CAI program.

Background

Utilized as a problem-solving instrument in higher education in the U. S.,

computers were first introduced in the mid-1950s (Reilly, 2004). In conjunction with the
 3

prospectus used in engineering science programs, CAI ultimately became a part of the

traditional classroom procedure. A decade later, conventions and symposiums were held

to discuss the use of the computer instruction in mathematics, science, computer science,

undergraduate courses, and secondary school counseling. In the 1960s, the University of

Illinois invented a computer system called PLATO, which stands for Programmed Logic

for Automatic Teaching Operations, to increase valuable instruction. The substantial

system accommodated instructional computing all over the colleges and universities in

Illinois all at the same time with up to 1,000 learners.

In January 1963, Stanford University began a computer assisted instruction

program in math and reading under the supervision of Richard Atkinson and Patrick

Suppes. The daily math drill-and-practice lessons permitted students to amend answers

through instant feedback that promoted the individualized instructional approach

(Robyler, 2009). In 1973, educational uses of computers started to surface such as drill-

and-practice programs, automated and discussion classes, assessments and analysis,

instructional games, management and information systems, computation, problem

solving, simulation, and graphic display of resources (Zinn, 1973).

In the 1980s, when reasonably priced personal computers were first introduced,

the AppleLogo was launched as a user-friendly new platform. To teach computer science

concepts, educational revolutionist Seymour Papert sponsored the Logic Oriented

Graphic Oriented language programming (Robyler, 2009). During the same time, IBM

invented the first personal computer (PC). Not too long, thereafter, because the PC met

the educator requirements during instructional delivery, technology received global

recognition in the world of education. Computer-based tutorials and instructional games

 4

were developed by Apple II Computer in 1983. In 1984, profit-making computer

software companies created computer-based educational games and software for PC

users. They were suitable in the drill-and-practice approach employed in schools

(Science & Technology Communications, 2010).

In the 1990s, compact discs were utilized to promote simulation CAI programs

intended for classroom use (Murdock, 2004). For knowledge conduction, conventional

lectures are suitable but do not stimulate critical thinking (Bligh, 2000). Instructions that

assist in transforming student viewpoints are critical to stimulate interest in the subject

matter (Holley & Dodson, 2008). Authors from previous studies revealed that the

majority of learners disapproved of traditional classroom lecture in general (Coates,

King, Sander, & Stevenson, 2000). Conventional instruction was deemed to be less

effective when compared to a more engaging methodology such as simulation games

(Caldwell, 2007; Knight & Wood, 2005).

The Internet became popular in 1995 as school systems began to utilize

multimedia tools for instructional delivery. The outpouring demand for online instruction

emerged due to the instant growth of the Internet, increasing computer use at home, and

the declining charges of communication (Volery, 2001). The connection between the

Internet and public schools in the mid-1990s grew from 35% to 100%. Likewise,

instructional classrooms in public education with Internet access flourished from 14%, 10

years prior, to 94% (Lewis & Wells, 2006). By the year 2014, it is projected that 90% of

the U.S. population will be online (Horrigan, 2008).

The features and characteristics of the Internet transformed and magnified access

(Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). In the year 2000, Web 1.0 was regarded as an
 5

academic source of information, where many users perused, read, and gathered

information from a front page or public entry point (Wallace, 2004). Theoretically, the

design, process, and results utilizing Web 1.0 represented knowledge amassed by

specialists with considerable qualifications in educational domain and specialty (Dede,

2008).

More recently, through the help of groundbreaking technologies, Web 2.0 is both

a stage and a space where consumers are as vital as the content disclosed and uploaded.

Social networks (Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter), media sharing (YouTube and

Flickr), and creative works (podcast and blogs) are part of Web 2.0 design. It supports

mixture of learning spaces that journey through physical and cyber space utilizing the

theories of teamwork and involvement (DeGennaro, 2008).

A subject that attracts attention at the national level in the field of education,

computer-assisted instruction is notable to all education stakeholders due to its ready

availability and accessibility features. Convenience and an upsurge in the interest of

learners in utilizing computers for interaction and entertainment led educators to discover

methods and applications to employ the use of computers as devices to improve learning

skills (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2003). The incorporation of CAI as an

addendum to conventional classroom instruction is more effective than standard

classroom instruction alone as reported by many researchers who investigated the

influence of CAI on the mathematical achievements of learners of various capacities,

proficiencies, and ages (Brothen & Wambach, 2000; McSweeney, 2003; Nguyen, 2002:

Olusi, 2008). Computer- assisted instruction is a procedure by which visible information

is conveyed to the students through technology in lucid progression, providing the

 6

students the opportunity to learn by viewing the information presented or by reading the

text displayed (Mahmood, 2004). All of the characterizations of CAI assent that a

computer in the classroom functions as a tutor that conveys instruction through various

methods of presentation.

Problem Statement

Based on research conducted by the National Assessment of Educational

Progress, mathematics achievement scores in the United States have decreased (National

Center for Education Statistics, 2007). The performance outcomes of American students

during international comparisons consistently scoring poorly in mathematics cause deep

concerns (President’s Council of Advisor on Science & Technology, 2010). In search of

an intervention, the writers of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) stressed the

significance of accountability and evidence-based decision-making requiring that all

learners from third through eighth grade be assessed in mathematics yearly.

With aspirations to increase student achievement in mathematics, computer

integration in the classroom has escalated. Computer-assisted instruction programs have

proven to enhance numerical reasoning, spatial thinking skills, problem-solving abilities,

and overall mathematics test scores (Hauptman, 2010; Lazakidou & Retalis, 2010; Silk,

Higashi, Ross, & Schunn, 2010). In an effort to improve achievement scores in a local

elementary school located in Southern California, school leaders have initiated a

supplemental program called Mad Dog Math (MDM) to address deficiency in

mathematics.

When investigating educational research, the role that gender differences

represent in learning mathematics must be considered (Stultz, 2009). School

 7

administrators believe that female underrepresentation in math-related fields is a concern

associated with retention even though girls have increased proficiency in mathematics in

elementary school (Nagel, 2007). However, an abundance of research has documented

significant gender differences in math performance. For example, on standardized

university entrance tests, males ordinarily surpassed females (Mullis, Martin, & Foy,

2005; Mullis, Martin, Gonzalez, Gregory, & Garden, 2000). Thus, weaker performance

of females on standardized math tests is of pressing concern.

Purpose

The purpose of this quantitative, quasi-experimental study was to determine the

effectiveness of a specific CAI supplemental math program, Mad Dog Math, on students’

math achievement as compared to students using only conventional teaching methods

utilized at a local elementary school located in Southern California. Two classes of

second and third grades, totaling 81students ranging from seven to nine years old,

participated in the study. Using a G*Power analysis, a total sample size of 80 was

needed to detect a larger medium effect. Since the total number of participants was

comprised of students enrolled in one private school, the sample size was satisfactory in

detecting large effects but was not adequate in disclosing medium size effects. The

student population consisted of male and female learners. A pretest and posttest utilizing

the California Standard Test (CST) Released Test Questions (California Department of

Education, 2011) were administered to learners as part of the study. The independent

variable in this study was the treatment of Mad Dog Math while the dependent variable

was the posttest scores. For the experimental group, 39 students were solicited to

participate in the study utilizing MDM computer-assisted instructional software program

 8

in addition to the conventional teaching of mathematics inside the classroom (treatment

group). For the control group, 42 students were requested to participate in the study

using only the conventional method of teaching mathematics without any supplements

(non-treatment group). This research produced valuable information to confront the

identified difficulty of learners’ deficient skills in mathematics in primary grades. The

outcomes suggested an approach or program that can be utilized as an instrument for

enhancing skills in mathematics. The findings may have a policy implication, at a district

level, both in the public and private sector, if ascertained to be effective and reliable as a

tool for increasing scores on mathematics achievement tests. Results from this study

contributed to the body of literature by adding knowledge and information that enhance

the teaching of primary students and their learning.

Theoretical Framework

Learning is a function of time where additional instruction assists in attaining

higher measurement of mastery (Carroll, 1963). This study embraced mastery learning as

its theoretical framework. The premise of this theory was based on the belief that

mastery is attainable for practically every student, on the condition that an appropriate

learning environment in the allotted time was provided and that the quality of instruction

was maintained at an exceptional level. Specification for enhancement, formative

assessment, and feedback should have been integrated in this quality instruction (Bloom,

1981).

Some learners will achieve more than others, particularly students who are

engaged in supplemental programs for enrichment. However, when educators are

dedicated to accomplish mastery learning for each student, modifications in their methods
 9

to deliver instructions and strategies to present classroom procedures and practices are

necessary, and then degree of achievement and amount of success in the entire classroom

intensify. Math classrooms that underscore mastery objectives accentuating learning and

advancement result in heightened learner achievement in mathematics and reduce anxiety

when material is challenging or tedious (Furner & Gonzalez-DeHass, 2011). Thus,

students who are considered underachievers are inspired to catch up and stay on task to

pursue excellence. Personal mastery goals achieved through mastery learning can

activate optimistic and inspirational sentiments when performing mathematics (Lau &

Nie, 2008; Linnenbrink, 2005).

Advocates of mastery learning stipulate that to get more students to advance to

mastery level, individual learner differences must be considered and adequate time spent

with the material is essential for student achievement (Cooperman, 2011). The theory of

mastery learning by Suppes and Zanotti (1996) is comprised of the following tenets: (a)

develop robust organization of curriculum and content presentation that is quantifiable

and regularly under evaluation, (b) disseminate instructional delivery based on

standardized components, (c) establish learner readiness, (d) apply learning paradigms for

assessing mastery, (e) employ forgetting models for assigning reevaluation, and (f) utilize

assessment on tutorial management.

Progress in achievement ensues when learners demonstrate the following:

A. Learners focus on the content standards and assessments assigned by the state.

B. Learners place emphasis on theories and proficiencies structured into standardized

elements such as sub content areas (word problems, fractions, etc.).

 10

C. Learners receive assigned and approved grade level prior to classwork

commencement, as established initially during preliminary series

D. Learners advance at their own speed when robust learning process in a specific

content area fulfills required benchmarks.

E. Learners obtain guaranteed tutorial services when signs of struggles in performance

arise.

F. Learners receive routine support to increase memory as forgetting brand-new

concepts are normal manifestation. This framework will be executed in MDM

algorithms to evaluate achievement in mathematics.

Another learning theory that this research adopted was active learning. Active

learning was intended to enhance student learning and achievement. Active learning is

observed when the following takes place: (a) the student is able to compose his or her

own interpretation, (b) present knowledge is established on prior knowledge, (c) the

student collaborates with other students, and (d) the learning is constructed based on

genuine engagement with learning resources (Cooperstein & Kocevar-Weidinger, 2004).

Active learning approach originates from the pedagogy of Pestalozzi’s Object of

Teaching, Froebel’s Kindergarten style of teaching, and Dewey’s philosophy of

experiential learning (Maher & Tienken, 2008). Active learning embraces a variety of

teaching approaches including shared learning, hands-on projects, instructor driven

inquiry, small group interaction, and role-playing.

Research Questions

Integrating the use of technology that offers mathematical questions, context, and

practical learning strategies into the curriculum has contributed to increased problem-
 11

solving skills in primary school students (Lazakidou & Retalis, 2010). There is a cause

and effect relationship inferred amid the utilization of CAI and success in mathematics

(Ash, 2004). Assuming that there is a connection, a study was warranted to confirm or

contradict a linkage in which the researcher can affect the variable of CAI.

This study was designed to determine the usefulness of a specific computer-

assisted instruction math program, Mad Dog Math, on students’ math achievement as

compared to students using only conventional teaching methods. The intervention

offered the opportunity to incorporate technology as a supplement in increasing

mathematics achievement. The pretest and posttest devised to ascertain any discrepancy

in mathematics achievement were administered. The test used was the California

Standard Tests (CST) Released Test Questions and was published by the California

Department of Education.

The following research questions were derived from the correlation that was

speculated between success in learning mathematics and the use of technology, more

specifically, computer assisted instruction programs, in the classroom. These questions

confirmed the process of exploring the effectiveness of technology integration of an

elementary mathematics program called Mad Dog Math. Furthermore, they identified the

position that gender differences exemplify in student learning mathematics was

accomplished by examining the trends using appropriate and acceptable instrumentation.

Q1. After accounting for the pretest score, is there a significant difference in the

mean posttest score between students who were offered the MDM software supplement

program and those who were not?

 12

Q2. Is there an interaction between gender (male or female) and treatment (MDM

supplement versus no MDM supplement) when evaluating posttest scores when pretest

scores are used as a covariate?

Hypotheses

H10. There is no significant difference in the posttest scores between the students

who receive mathematics instruction using conventional math and MDM as a supplement

and students who receive conventional math instruction without the MDM supplement

when using pretest scores as a covariate.

H1a. There is a significant difference in the posttest scores between the students

who receive mathematics instruction using conventional math and MDM as a supplement

and students who receive conventional math instruction without the MDM supplement

when using pretest scores as a covariate.

H20. There is no significant interaction between gender (male versus female) and

treatment (MDM supplement versus no MDM supplement) when evaluating posttest

scores when pretest scores are used as a covariate.

H2a. There is a significant interaction between gender (male versus female) and

treatment (MDM supplement versus no MDM supplement) when evaluating posttest

scores when pretest scores are used as a covariate.

Nature of the Study

A quasi-experimental study was conducted at a local elementary school in

Southern California to ascertain if a correlation exists between the utilization of CAI in

the classroom and mathematics achievement. The California Standard Test (CST) was

administered to all learners as a pretest. After exposure to computer assisted instruction

 13

and conventional math instruction (experimental group), or conventional math instruction

only (control group), the CST was readministered. The pretest and posttest measure of

dependent variable is a criterion-referenced test developed in 2005 by California

educators and test developers particularly for the state of California. Scores were

calculated and inputted in SPSS Student Version 20.0 for Windows. Preceding analysis,

data were assessed for outliers, skewness, and kurtosis.

Utilizing the Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), the two hypotheses in the study

were examined. Gender was an independent variable to be investigated as a potential

confounding variable for its effect on the posttest outcome. Mad Dog Math was an

independent variable, used with the computer, designed to assist students with acquiring

mastery of the basic math facts (Kotoff, 2011).

Significance of the Study

Due to the continuous shift in the global economy and workplace, daily use in

decision-making and the association between mathematics and other specialties,

proficiency in mathematics is crucial. As one of the major approaches of associating the

world intelligently through expressions and numerals, the significance of mathematics is

accentuated (Laidlow, 2004). The ability to integrate words with numbers is one of the

highest markers of intelligence (Amunga & Masasia, 2011).

For the intellectual advancement and economic readiness of today’s young

people, the American institutions of public education are held accountable, especially

since the U.S. has undergone a change from an industrialized-based nation to one that

overpoweringly delivers services and information. This particular change requires that

technological skills be completely incorporated in all school curriculum involving science

 14

and mathematics. This integration will prepare the new generation of students to think

analytically, infer and reason, and be ready to learn how to gain knowledge (Nathan &

Tran, 2010).

Educators are confronted with sustaining the diverse needs of all the learners that

they influence in the classroom. It is crucial for educators to make available research-

based alternatives including technology application in the classroom, since ascertaining

methodologies and techniques can be overwhelming (O’Connell & Phye, 2005).

Modifying instructional strategies, specifically where the computer is concerned, can be a

complicated undertaking. Integrating technology in classroom curriculum includes

challenges but with it emanates thoughtful understanding and effective learning

opportunities on how to succeed in educational values (Groff, Haas, Klopfer, &

Osterweil, 2009).

Technology applications continuously improve to effectively deliver mathematics

thus increasing mathematics achievement through enhancement via the instructional

method (Lynch, 2006; Hannafin, Liu, Truxaw, & Vermillion, 2008). Numerous

researchers have investigated the influence of technology on student achievement in

mathematics. For example, it has been reported that mathematical knowledge advanced

when the use of multimedia was integrated in math instruction for primary grade students

(Kramarski, Talis, & Weiss, 2006).

Likewise, improved motivation ensued for upper elementary grade learners when

computer games were incorporated in their math curriculum (Ke, 2008). A study done

involving middle school students revealed enhanced basic skills in mathematical

conception and operation with the CAI indoctrination (Tienken & Wilson, 2007). House
 15

(2001) reported that the use of CAI produced substantial improvement in the outcomes of

national and international math and science assessments.

This study was significant because outcomes disclosed information concerning

the effectiveness of CAI when used as a supplement to conventional math curriculum. It

assisted educators to enhance classroom procedures and strategies in generating and

cultivating students’ interests in mathematics. It aided in exposing the influences that

endorse discrepancies in mathematics achievement. The outcomes from this research

have policy implications at a district level. Findings from this study conveyed

information to stakeholders, educators, administrators, and state legislators regarding a

specific CAI software program that contributed to improving the state’s math curriculum.

Definitions

For the purpose of this study, the following definitions apply:

Assessment. Assessment is used to ascertain the needs of a student or school

district. Summative learner assessments investigate how individual students perform on a

learning task compared to cumulative assessments that evaluate how a group achieved at

the conclusion of the study (Campolongo, 2008).

California Standard Test (CST). California Standard Test is a multiple choice

examination that assesses learners’ progress toward achieving California’s state adopted

academic content standard in English—language arts (ELA), mathematics, science, and

history—social science which describe what students should be able to comprehend and

execute in each grade and subject analyzed (California Department of Education, 2011).

Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI). Computer assisted instruction is a

process that provides personalized instruction using computer technology that

 16

accentuates the methods of effective learning trials with predetermined outcomes to

manipulate precise learner responses (Martindale et al., 2005).

Courseware. Courseware is educational software designed for instruction

(Rowley, 2005).

Curriculum. Curriculum is a set of decision-making processes and products

including knowledge, skills, and performance standards that learners are expected to

attain by a specific grade level in a specific area (Campolongo, 2008).

Integration. Integration is the process of combining parts of lessons to become

one (Campolongo, 2008).

Mad Dog Math. Mad Dog Math is a supplemental math program to any math

curriculum for grades kindergarten through fifth grade or for remedial middle and high

school students. It is used with computer or traditional methodologies, intended to help

learners with increasing mastery of the fundamental math facts which are the building

blocks for math (Kotoff, 2007).

Mastery learning. Mastery learning is an instructional approach that is centered

on the idea that given sufficient time, all learners can learn. Students do not further

advance to a new group of problems until a personalized performance benchmark has

been mastered (Bloom, 1968; Smith, Marchand-Martella, & Martella, 2010).

Proficiency. Proficiency signifies strong scholastic accomplishment and displays

expertise above difficult subject matter (NCES, 2007).

Summary

Computer technology is an effective device that has the ability to support learners

in participating in multifaceted mathematical progressions (Blume, Dick, Heid, & Zbeik,

 17

2007). With the presentation of innovative technological advancements, there is an

upsurge of awareness in training students to become knowledgeable and skilled,

technologically, in preparation for their future involvement in a progressively computer

inundated environment. Many schools today are starting to integrate technology as an

integral portion of their course outline, thus technology incorporation in mathematics is

imperative in education.

To maintain advancement in math achievement, it is crucial to expand the value

of math education obtained by all learners (The National Mathematics Advisory Panel

(2008). There are numerous components that influence mathematics learning such as

instructors’ technical abilities and attributes of learners and their family members. One

feature in which the school administration has instantaneous control is the selected math

program to be carried out by the instructors (Groff, Lake, & Slavin, 2009).

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of the technology

integration in an elementary mathematics program, Mad Dog Math, and the position that

gender differences exemplify in student learning of mathematics. The quasi-

experimental study included two classes of second and third grade, totaling 81students

over an eight-week period at a local elementary school in Southern California. The

outcomes suggested an approach or program that can be utilized as an instrument for

enhancing skills in mathematics. The findings have policy implication, at a district level,

both in the public and private sector, and ascertained to be effective and reliable as a tool

for increasing scores in mathematics achievement test. Results from this study also

contributed to the body of literature by adding knowledge and information that enhance

teaching of and learning in primary school students.

 18

Chapter 2: Literature Review

The intent of the subsequent literature review was to identify research-based

literature involving the success of computer assisted instruction in mathematics

achievement. This chapter includes the following:

A. Historical perspective of math education

B. Historical perspective of technology integration

C. Computer assisted Instruction

D. Summary

This literature review includes recent studies and publications involving the

history of mathematics education and technology integration as well as the effectiveness

of CAI in mathematics advancement. Utilizing conventional libraries and internet-based

library databases using EBSCOHost, EBSCOHost OmniFile, Gale Academic OneFile,

ProQuest, SAGE Education, ScienceDirect, and Teachers College record, research-based

literature regarding the use of CAI in the classroom was compiled.

Searches of the databases regarding types of CAI such as practice and drill

sessions, tutorial sessions, simulations, instructional games, and problem solving were

especially valuable in finding information that concentrated upon K-12 education rather

than postsecondary level. Particularly, the researcher pursued information concerning the

history, philosophy, and the availability of computer programs in education. Searches

using distinguished learning specialists such as Ash, Dynarski, Fuchs, Hyde, Schoppek,

Suppes, and Tullis were contributory for locating articles as well as books through

Google Books. To deliver profundity and depth for each topic indicated above, past and
 19

present researchers were cited. Concepts and theories associated with effective

instructions employing CAI were added.

Historical Perspectives of Mathematics Education

In the 20th Century, the direction for the prospect of mathematics education was

formulated by William Heard Kilpatrick, one of the country’s leading groundbreakers in

education. Kilpatrick, an educator at Colombia University, advocated the theory of

progressive education. The foundation of progressive education included instruction

reserved only for learners who autonomously desired to learn the subject, hence,

validating the sluggish stride of learners and limiting instruction to practical skills that

promoted restrained scholastic content (Klein, 2003).

In the late 1950s, Sputnik 1was discharged by the Russians, the event that

commemorated the beginning of the intergalactic era and the space rivalry between the

Americans and the Russians. Pivotal reformation pertaining to “New Math” was

prompted in response to apprehension that American students were plummeting in

mathematics and science. Although the properties of grammar and phonics,

corroboration, and perception were the highlights of this New Math, it was unsuccessful

in improving the country’s aptitude and proficiency in mathematics. Later in the 1970s,

the Back to Basics movement accenting memorization of procedures and fundamental

math facts such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division was brought about

(Burris, 2006).

The society’s dissatisfaction with public education was amplified in the 1980s

when economic challenges prevailed. The public detected the correlation between the

recession and the mediocre public education system in the United States. This caused the
 20

Department of Education to encounter reproach. The publication of the Nation at Risk:

The imperative for Education Reform (NAR) turned out to be the strength for 20 years of

standards based formation (Gardner, 1983).

Many studies and debates bade to focus on some of the risks recognized such as

instructor credentials and better disbursement for faculty resources. To promote learner

access to educational opportunities, classrooms were furnished with technology and

devices including state of the art computer and software programs. Consequently,

educators and staff members needed to be equipped to integrate technology in the

curriculum and be able to apply them in the business world. In relation to the support

structure that is required to maintain learners on a reasonable or even beyond

sophisticated status in comparison with students from other nations, the impact of this

trend are astounding (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1984).

Additionally, the initial set of standards was established in 1989 by the National Council

of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2012).

The campaign for technology integration and the employment of manipulatives in

the classroom were the main emphasis in mathematics in the 1990s. The utilization of

constructivist methodology and child-development activities was the popular strategies

during this period (Burns, 1999; National Association for the Education of Young

Children [NAEYC], 2009; Roth, 1992). Acceptance and popularity of The National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) Standards on aptitude testing and grade

related scope and sequences expanded and numerous states and educators advocated its

model programs. Proficiency in content areas such as mathematics for grade level
 21

advancement was mandatory in some states as competency examinations became

prevalent (NCTM, 1995).

Difficulties in math are evidenced significantly in counting as students with math

disabilities fall short in making the transfer to memory-based recovery of number

combinations. This is crucial because the ability to recall number combinations is

introductory to higher order accomplishments. Knowledge of math facts and

mathematical fluency in computation has been recognized by the NCTM as fundamental

components of national math benchmarks (NCTM, 2006). Contained in this criterion is

the expectancy that by the end of second grade, learners should be able to grasp the

fundamentals of addition and subtraction combinations and be confident in adding and

subtracting two-digit numbers.

Fluency in basic math skills, crucial for the achievement of learners in primary

school, functions as a groundwork for mathematical relevance in areas such as time,

money, and problem solving (Codding, Chan-lannetta, Palmer, & Lukito, 2009).

Competence in mathematics is a critical objective in primary education. Moreover,

proficiency in mathematics explicitly influences the conditions needed to succeed in the

many responsibilities that formal education, occupation, lifestyle, service quality, and

domestic advancement entail (Ramos-Christian, Schleser, & Varn, 2008).

In a study directed by Cherney and London (2006), with regards to recreational

activities such as the use of the computer, television shows, and outdoor activities, gender

was an important characteristic. The authors reported that most males spent their

recreation time occupied visiting various websites on the Internet, staying outdoors, and

playing with their favorite toys, whereas, girls spend most of their leisure time watching
 22

television. Traditionally, dynamic, thrill-seeking, and daring tasks have been given to

male characters (Bontempi & Warden-Hazelwood, 2003). These gender differences and

inclinations have endured and remained in computer software preferences, thus ensued

substandard inspiration for females to contribute in more advanced math and science

activities. Similarly, physiological factors, family practices, childhood experiences,

cultural influences, and scholastic policies alter the enthusiasm of males and females who

participated in higher-level study of mathematics and science (Halpern et al., 2007, p.1).

Gender Differences in Learning Mathematics

Although increasing research outcomes point to the confirmation of gender

similarities in mathematics achievement, stereotypes that females have inferior math

skills prevail (Bhana, 2005; Hyde, Lindberg, Linn, Ellis, & Williams, 2008; Kiefer &

Sekaquaptewa, 2007). The underrepresentation of women at the utmost concentration of

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is an ongoing problem as

gender differences in mathematics achievement, viewpoint, and influence continue to be

in question (Halpern et al., 2007; National Academy of Sciences, 2007). In part, the gap

can be associated with social and educational influences that are viewed as obstacles to

women considering STEM fields (Stultz, 2009). However, an even greater portion of the

shortage appears to come from the issues of gender differences and learning styles in the

perspective of specialized fields such as STEM (Kulturel-Kinak, D’Allegro, &

Dickinson, 2011). Learners’ decisions about taking a particular college major are

centered on how fitting the norms of the major conform to the students’ learning styles

(Kolb, 1976).
 23

Most male students, typically, acquire knowledge from instructors who undertake a

commanding position or compelling role. Female learners, on the other hand, may

acclimatize to this style of learning but achieve more and relate better with mentors

whose instruction style facilitates learning (Barrett, 2006). The idea that learning is also

shaped by the student and not automatically contingent on the dissemination of

knowledge from mentor to learner is identified as Experiential Learning and utilized

today in many universities, and is inefficient in instructing female students (Kolb & Kolb,

2005). Traditional STEM courses are distinctively aggressive but neglect to modify

instruction to welcome all learning modalities (Tindal & Hamil, 2003). Adopting various

teaching methods including the use of multimedia lectures utilizing technology will

accommodate learners who are not responsive to conventional types of education (Baker,

2007).

In a research project conducted by Leder (2004), he conveyed that findings of

contradictory outcomes such as feelings of worthlessness among females were especially

real with high achievers and girls with high probability of advancing in mathematics.

These feelings of uselessness occurred albeit the fact that their success stories have

escalated over the years. Other reports, directly or indirectly, regarding gender

differences with cohorts pertaining to the academically talented were alarmingly

associated with the term labeled as “talented female student resistance to science”

(Enman & Lupart, 2000, p.161). Variations in adeptness explain gender differences due

to the greater percentage of males with an extremely great talent in the discipline linked

with inert sciences rather than their female counterparts (Lubinski, Benbow, & Morelock,

2000). Other possibilities include female issues related to emotional considerations.

 24

These sentiments include convictions and affinities as well as social impacts involving

gender responsibilities and traditions.

In a research done by Ceci and Williams (2010), they indicated three possible

rationalizations for the underrepresentation of females in STEM fields. First

rationalization includes the gender disparities in mathematical and spatial skills. One

would contend that a surplus of males at the right tail of a quantitative research (Ceci,

Williams, & Barnett, 2009) rationalizes females’ underrepresentation in STEM fields:

Registrar’s office is more likely to admit men applicants if there are double the amount of

male gender in the top 1% of the graduates even if women receive the same grades or

even higher grades in mathematics than their male counterparts (Gallagher & Kaufmann,

2005). Although strong report on male gains over female on three-dimensional spatial

rotation has been claimed (Little, Lubinski, & Wai, 2007), evidence of absolute

correlation that this skill causes reduced involvement of women in STEM fields is

lacking (Little, Newcombe, & Terlecke, 2007). Therefore, the possibility of having the

2:1 gender ratio is higher and consistent with lack of gender symmetry (Park, Lubinski, &

Benbow, 2008).

The second explanation involves prejudice in publication, subsidy, and

employment. In examining attestation for bias against females in hiring and funding, true

findings and analysis have been inconclusive in providing rationale for the truncated

quantity of women involved in STEM fields (Ginther & Kahn, 2006). Previous research

have also concluded that after regulating underlying variables such as prestige of the

college campus, field specialty, and existence of little children in the family during term,
 25

all of which castigate women unreasonably, proof of intolerant is lacking especially

because males in similar conditions perform equally (Corbett, Hill, & St. Rose, 2010).

Finally, the last reasoning involves the preferences of profession and standard of

living that decrease females’ involvement in STEM fields. A study performed by

Armstrong, Rounds, and Su (2009) revealed that rather than being fascinated in areas

encompassing systematizing non-living things like their male counterpart, women are

more captivated by careers related to social relations such as policy making and

treatment. Conversely, there are fewer women with superior mathematics ability that are

attracted to STEM related profession (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006). In the midst of

equally exceptional mathematical aptitude amongst both genders, the consideration that

women often have superior speaking skills has been discounted (Park, et al., 2008).

Whereas more males are aware that their solely intensity is in mathematics, women

contemplate on choosing professions from other math- associated areas such as medicine,

policy making, civilizations, and social sciences.

Thus prior research has been analyzed that females withdraw from scientific

professions after reaching their assistant professor positions at greater rate than males

(Ceci, Williams, 2009). When females give up their careers to have children, it is a

preference- compelled by biology- that male is not mandated to generate. Therefore, the

principal influence in females’ underrepresentation in STEM fields is choices both

generously accepted and restricted by biology and culture (Ceci & Williams, 2010).

In two ability tests of mathematical achievement assessed by the instructors and

the standardized mathematics test, the boys’ group merited considerably superior test

scores but the gender disparities in grades were not present. Gender discrepancies were
 26

present and significant in gifted groups to a higher degree than in the regular aptitude

groups of students. The hypothesis that gifted learners are more dissimilar when it comes

to personal perception, fascination, and inspiration in mathematics than the non-gifted

learners was reinforced in this study (Goetz, Kleine, Pekrun, & Preckel, 2008).

In addition, the authors noted that gender-associated disparities in mathematics

execution for both regular and gifted students are explicit in task. It was observed that in

numerical problem-solving, males scored higher than females. Nevertheless, when it

came to cognitive mathematics, females demonstrated a minor edge over their male

counterpart. Although girls received higher grades on their report cards from school, for

assignments that demanded arithmetic mastery, boys surpassed the girls. Overall, both in

regular and talented student populations, boys displayed greater arithmetic-linked

aptitude philosophies, a more convincing fascination in arithmetic, and a more robust

implementation objective induction in mathematics than girls (Goetz, Kleine, Pekrun, &

Preckel, 2008, p. 154).

Based on the findings of this investigation, the researchers endorsed immediate

recognition of aptitudes and prompt intervention and treatment programs for females,

specifically females with greater proficiency. It is critical to relegate the prospect of

females acquiring a damaging self- view and an unfavorable mindset towards arithmetic.

Besides emphasis centered on girls, treatments should also concentrate on addressing

environmental components such as guardians, educators, friends, and associates. The

following are other promising intercessions: a) curriculum for stimulating curiosity on

separate sex-education, (b) modifications of pedagogy and classroom syllabus, (c)

boosting the amount of mathematics programs for girls, (d) retraining of ascription, (e)
 27

establishment of counselors and advisors, (f) parental and educator advocacy (Kleine,

Goetz, Pekrun, Preckel, 2008, p. 156).

It has been recorded in the past that female students, from elementary all the way

through college take home superior grades on their report cards compared to male

students in the majority of their scholastic subjects, including advance placement

mathematics (Freeman, 2004; Halpern, 2000). However, the outcomes lack constancy in

exhibiting boys or girls being the frontrunners with regards to advancement in

mathematics. Freeman (2003, 2004) suggested that the rationale for unpredictable results

was associated with ethnic variations and cultural diversities in organizational

development, design, and subject matter of school prospectus and pedagogical

procedures.

In assessing the gender gap, first, authors Hyde et al., (2008) used two meta-

analyses of math skills, 1990 and 2007. The findings included negative gender

disparities generally, d=.05; and approximately identical male and female inconsistencies,

VR = 1.08. Next, sizeable data were evaluated centered on the likelihood selection of

American juveniles over the two decades. During the study, the researchers observed a

low effect size differences between males and females. The gender gap effect sizes

varied between -0.15 and +0.22 and variance ratios fluctuated from 0.88 to 1.34.

Opposed to the destructive typecast that is broadly embraced by young girls that females

are inadequate in mathematics skills, professional adults, and parents (Cavanaugh, 2008),

the authors of this cross-sectional investigation on standardized math scores continued to

demonstrate no gender distinctions in mathematics performance (Hyde et al., 2008). The

10 states involved in the assessment of second through eleventh grades standardized math
 28

scores included: California, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota, Missouri, New

Jersey, New Mexico, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

In the preceding era, one of the key rationalizations for higher male scores on

standardized exams in secondary schools included the scenario that females infrequently

registered for advanced placement mathematics and science courses (Meece & Eccles-

Parsons, 1982). Albeit girls continued to trail after the boys in taking physics classes, by

the year 2000, the number of girls registered in calculus courses in secondary schools was

equal to the number of the boys (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2006). Currently,

while it has been documented that gender disparities in the fields of engineering and

physics still exist, 48% of the undergraduate degrees in mathematics are acquired by

females (NSF, 2004). Thus, after assessing the gender gap using two meta-analysis of

math skills issued between 1990 and 2007 and data from U.S. youngsters, the authors

endorsed the understanding that mathematics skills of boys and girls are alike (Hyde et

al., 2008).

In an attempt to duplicate the study done by Hyde, et al., (2008), Scafidi and Bui

(2010) utilized national data from grades eight, ten, and twelve. The replicated research

involved samples of students nationwide. The goal of the study was to assess whether

gender equivalences in math skills would be altered by social status, economic position,

race, and mathematics ranking from middle all the way through high school. Since

learners’ mindsets and impressions concerning their future professions inspire the courses

that they will register for, the authors of the study chose students from middle school and

secondary school as participants. The rationale persisted that students would relinquish
 29

the prospect to chase occupations that compel intense math aptitude if learners lacked

perseverance in pursuing advanced mathematics placement in junior and high schools.

The longitudinal part of the investigation started in 1988. At that time, the eighth

graders throughout the U.S. were evaluated utilizing data from the National Education

Longitudinal Study (NELS). The NELS organized a sequel of assessments when the

participating students entered tenth grade in 1990 and in twelfth grade in 1992. Two

years later, after high school graduation, the same evaluation was conducted as part of the

longitudinal inquiry.

The writers of prior studies (Hyde, Fennema, & Lamon, 1990; Hedges & Nowell,

1990; Kimbal, 1989) have corroborated that their research resulted to minimal gender

differences in mathematics skills. In addition, the findings, contingent on the effect and

model of experiment, at times bolstered girls and at times bolstered boys. The concern of

the intricacy of intellectual progression as an inquiry of item challenged as well as the

complexity of understanding needed to decode a specific question are intellectualized by

present mathematics scholars. To distinguish the intellectual complicatedness of math

items on standardized evaluation, depth of knowledge levels 1- 4 were created (Webb,

1999). To measure the intellectual requirements of the examinations that determine math

skills, this depth of knowledge agenda was applied.

The instrumentations used comprised of test elements assembled together by the

degree of complexity (Rock & Pollack, 1995): (a) Math Level 1measured competency in

executing straightforward numerical procedures with whole numbers, (b) Math Level 2

assessed aptitude in implementing uncomplicated application with number fractions,

square roots, and decimal operations, (c) Math Level 3 analyzed basic knowledge of
 30

simple arithmetic concepts applied in unsophisticated problem solving, (d) Math Level 4

examined skills in the usage of higher level numerical theories and solving word

problems applying numerous steps to find solutions, (e) Math Level 5 checked adeptness

in unraveling multifaceted word problems utilizing multi-step ways to find the answer.

Although the result in this study was not altered by social status, economic position, race,

or math proficiency, the researchers submitted outcomes that displayed gender

resemblances throughout all the grade levels measured. Overall, the findings presented

pragmatic proof and confirmation for parents and professionals to inspire girls of all age

to pursue and acquire superior skills in mathematics.

In comparison, authors of both studies, Hyde et al., (2008) and Scafidi and Bui

(2010) reported results of gender similarities in mathematics on standardized

mathematics testing. In the experiment performed by Hyde et al., (2008), however, the

exception to gender likeness was when beginning in high school males favored complex

problem-solving, which may contribute to the gender disparity in STEM careers. The

authors, therefore, resolved that their assessment for learners from second through

eleventh grades demonstrated that girls now score just as well as the boys.

The integration between education and technology embraces practical foundation

in methodologies concerning learning and instruction. However, despite the

sophisticated procedures available today, learners are still the principal controller in the

learning process. Only through the learners, the central component, can full potential in

learning occur. Technology in itself cannot mechanically unleash learning. Conversely,

a mentor still portrays a vital function as the external influence in learning (Ru-De, 2010).
 31

Many schools are welcoming technology as an important component of their

educational programs. Integrating the use of the computer in mathematics classroom is

essential in today’s education as society becomes more progressive, innovative, and

contingent upon technology. Numerous educational technologies that advocate a variety

of teaching and learning purposes and approaches can be integrated into math programs.

For example, technology devices such as computers, laptops, hand-held devices, graphic

calculators, interactive white boards, and immediate response gadgets, and web-based

applications are significant in math classrooms and have considerable influence on

teaching and learning in primary and secondary schools (International Society of

Technology Standards [ISTE], 2005).

Historical Perspective of Technology Integration in Education

Developed on university grounds, the first computer in operation was employed in

1944 at Harvard University to execute the implementation of basic math (Reilly, 2004).

Concurring with the resoluteness of computer integration in the classroom, it continues to

have intense influence in education. The innovative function of computer- assisted

instruction is one of the groundbreaking operations of computers in education (Suppes,

1996).

The instruction of binary mathematics utilizing the computer was established by

IBM in the 1950s and soon after, the first CAI project, the PLATO, was inaugurated at

the University of Illinois. In its primary phase, Plato was also applied in the nursing

department and for library explorations. Consecutively, CAI projects were introduced in

computer programming, mathematics, chemistry, physics, and health education courses at

the University of Texas and at Florida State University. In Utah, during the Time-Shared
 32

period, Brigham Young University used the computer as the principal instruction in

junior colleges (Boyer, Dalgaard, & Lewis, 1984).

In 1967, the Logic Oriented Graphic Oriented (LOGO) programming was

invented by Papert and Feurzig. It was originally intended for the instruction of

mathematical concepts to increase analytical thinking skills in elementary and secondary

education. In the 1980s, the employment of LOGO, combined with other content areas

independent of mathematics, was soon uncovered. For initial programming courses,

LOGO used the “language for learning” which specialized in easy and perceptive

grammar and composition to attract its juvenile customers (Rusev & Solomon, 2008).

To investigate the role of computers at the collegiate level, the President’s

Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) chairperson, John R. Pierce, construed that in the

absence of sufficient computing, higher education was lacking as higher education would

be incomplete in the absence of satisfactory library support. Whereas promoting the

concept of using computers in the corporate and economic worlds was complex,

convincing educators of the functionality of computers in the classroom was just as

uncertain. The application of the computer in research was meager and the concept that

computer use in the classroom was imperative and essential in education was still unusual

(Molnar, 1990).

During the 1990s, researchers discovered the constructive influence of computer

enrichment and tutorial programs (Kulik, 2003). Numerous investigators reported the

affirmative impacts of computer use on math and science and the quality of student

composition with the use of student laptops (Adonri & Gittman, 1998; Gardner, Jarman,

& Morrison, 1993; Geban, Ozkan, & Yalcinalp, 1995). From 1997 to present, with the
 33

evolution of the Internet, magnified with high speed, it soon became the leading source of

information (database), graphics, and streaming video.

The Internet, with its downloadable programs, is a priceless resource for many

educators, in spite of the threats of unforeseen computer viruses and other problems.

Various educational applications and bigger computer memory make the use of the

personal PC for teacher and student extremely useful and indispensable. The use of

multimedia tools for communication, distributing information, and delivering instructions

utilizing search engines such as Bing, Yahoo, WebCrawler, and Google have transformed

ways of communication and interaction between people worldwide (IGI Global, 2008).

A concept where technology is a continuous segment of classwork, assisting

activities and experiences that allow students to participate in motivating, engaging,

applicable, profound, and logically inspiring practices is known as technology integration

(Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2003). However, technology employment in the

classroom remains elusive despite its popularity with the students. This is deemed to be

due to the increased school activities and experiences, with regards to schedule and

description of usage (Bakia, Mitchell, & Young, 2008).

In an effort to concentrate on problems related to the absence of effective

technology integration, the information and communication technology (ICT) specialists

have suggested the following features be considered: (a) competency with the use of

computer, (b) acceptance concerning its usefulness, (c) personal preference with

teaching, (d) accessibility, and (e) availability of technical support (Straub, 2009). On the

other hand, there is substantial proof indicating that computer integration can assist in

training learners to be technologically informed and efficient for this century (Crooks,
 34

Fan-Harrington, Tomas, & Underwood, 2010). Rationale including enthusiasm

concerning familiarity, ability, and certainty in operating the computer fosters technology

integration in the classroom (Inan & Lowther, 2010; Ward & Parr, 2010).

To accentuate dynamic learning, thoughtful perceptions, and applicable

treatments, many educators are enhancing their conventional lectures with the use of

technology (Armington, 2003; Hall & Pantoon, 2005). One of the main objectives of

scholastic research today is uncovering how students learn successfully (Larwin &

Larwin, 2011). In the past 50 years, the impact of information and communication

technology has contributed to the momentum in educational reformation.

To increase math achievements, educators are primarily involved in executing

procedures that have displayed score advancement in mathematics for all students.

Technology integration in the classroom, such as the use of CAI, is an educational

technique that embraces individualized learning theory. To reinforce the method of

instruction and learner enthusiasm, the computer can be utilized as a podium for

acquiring education. Integrating the use of computers in classrooms such as math is

commonly used for enhancement. With the capability to assess each student’s

mathematical skills, CAI programs can prepare drill-and-practice exercises designed to fit

individual requirements.

Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI)

Computer-assisted instruction utilizes technology to improve learners’

mathematics achievement scores. After learning a lesson from a math textbook, students

can then visit the computer, either stationed inside the classroom or go to a computer

center, to gain supplementary instructions in mathematics. The instruction can be in the

 35

form of a drill or exercise. It usually involves basic math family facts progressing into

more challenging questions related to current and past lessons. Computer-assisted

instruction can assist in identifying learners’ level of accomplishment as well as offer

daily practice drills based on computer analysis and from the students’ previous score.

Individualization and the computer’s ability to analyze the learners’ advancement in the

program and to be able to uninterruptedly meet the students’ needs are the main features

of the program (Slavin & Lake, 2008).

From a restricted drill and exercise series to a merged state-of-the-art technology

assessment and instruction, computer-assisted instruction has progressed over time.

Normally utilized as an extension to a curriculum, CAI is now consistently part of the

classroom agenda for up 30 minutes weekly. The computer’s expertise to pinpoint

learners’ upside and downside and to provide the students opportunities to practice

independently to advancement is showcased in CAI. This feature is significant in a

content area like mathematics, particularly when it comes to basic math facts like

addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.

One of the outstanding social verities of the 20th Century is the endeavor to

deliver uniformity and mass schooling worldwide (Suppes, 1988). The use of CAI can

deliver an echelon of consistency and standardization that elevate the level of pedagogy.

Opportunities for curriculum to be customized and individualized with the absence of

intimidation to one’s self-determination and autonomy are achievable with the

employment of CAI.

The following are among the many functions of the computer-assisted instruction

in the classroom: (a) provides professional graphic visualization, (b) serves as a tutorial
 36

service which demands constant interaction with the learner and the modification of the

content designed to match the skills and abilities of the learners, (c) generates tests and

quizzes linked to the syllabus provided by the institution (mastery learning can be easily

attained by posting replacement questionnaires of each exam not fully grasped), and (d)

offers a program management system that allows learners to have immediate feedback

and access to their records.

In 2000, the NCTM endorsed the integration of computer application in

mathematics. Due to the heightened availability, CAI has been suggested as a convenient

and functional supplement to teacher-delivered instruction (NCTM, 2006). Computer-

assisted instruction has been successfully utilized by students with or without learning

disabilities. Its success is mainly due to increased time concentrated on reading materials

or exercises on the computer. It offers productive practice and time management and is

an effective tool when used as a supplement to provide drills (Beeland, 2002).

One of the main advantages that the CAI provides inside the classroom is one-on-

one exercises with minimal supervisory time involving the teacher. In many cases,

instant feedback to students allows mistakes to be rectified immediately. Certain

programs offer features that monitor speed and accuracy of answers and the regularity of

instruction for subject mastery (Wong, 2008). Computer-assisted instruction offers one

potential opportunity for education leaders to prevail over or attend to the issues of low

achievement in mathematics.

In a study conducted by Fuchs, Hamlet, Powell, Capsize, and Seethaler (2006),

the researchers deemed that CAI should assist learners to assign the matching number

combination to long-term memory for habitual recovery thus enhancing number

 37

combination skills among learners with assenting risk for math disability. The use of

CAI in mathematics programs was successful in advancing addition but not subtraction

number combination skills and that transfer to math word story problems took place.

One recommendation was that the teachers supervise learners so that correct usage of the

software was guaranteed (Fuchs et al., 2006).

By examining the influence of two CAI programs on the math academic success

of two groups of scholastic at-risk middle school learners compared to a group of learners

who were not at-risk in a conventional instructional program, Neil and Matthews’ (2009)

research revealed only a minor breach between the two groups following the first year of

the CAI interventions. The educators and administrators at the middle school credited the

victory to CAI involvement as a diagnostic device utilized to increase learner

accomplishment for each of the testing phases. The study, however, did not employ a

true experimental design with an arbitrary mixture and assignment of participants.

Instead, it presented outcomes that allowed the investigators to ascertain the strong points

and the course of the relationship between different collections of data (Borg, Gall, &

Gall, 2007).

Implementing well-targeted supplementary materials to increase mathematics

advancement is a plan with robust indication of success. CAI offers a unique benefit of

diagnosing learners’ mathematical skills and delivering personalized exercises that

students are required to learn and master but have not yet learned and mastered.

Supplementary curriculums that are created to transform everyday instructions and

procedures were reported to be more effective in promoting mathematics advancement

 38

when compared to programs that are designed to adhere predominantly with prospectus

or technology (Slavin & Lake, 2008).

Effectiveness of CAI in Mathematics

Technology has been voted as “fundamental” in education and its usage is

greatly approved in instructing mathematics, specifically in the areas of grids, graphics,

and calculations (NTCM, 2006). Authors of numerous studies revealed mixed findings

on the influence of technology integration on learners’ achievement. For example, in his

research on the impact of CAI and software programs on students’ degree of success,

Almeqdadi (2005) reported an increase in levels of achievement. In contrast,

Buykkoroglu et al. (2006) reported non-significant results between learners who

incorporated technology in their education versus non-technology users. The motivation

to utilize technology in the classroom is contingent on the routine to which it will be

employed (Sheehan & Nillas, 2010). Thus, investigators and educators need to analyze

the rationale behind utilizing technology in the classroom.

In applying the use of technology to increase mathematics achievement,

numerous learners veered towards technology for assistance far beyond their own

understanding on how to solve math related problems (Galbriath, 2006). In a study done

on the improvement in learners’ enthusiasm and participation in studying mathematical

reasoning in junior high school, Fies (2007) pointed out that technology integration was

the culprit. On the contrary, Muir (2007) indicated that the absence of scholastic

influence during computer integration in middle grades math and science classrooms was

due to the marginal use of the equipment that gave way to inadequate computer skills for

both mentors and learners.

 39

The use of interactive mathematics software programs by middle school age

students directed learners to infer geometric configurations prior to formulating evidences

that validate their hypothesis as a group (Vincent, 2005). The author construed that the

software program assisted in increasing students’ comprehension and appreciation for

geometric patterns. Whereas, Sher (2005) recounted that student-centered expositions

and thoughtful discussions steered learners to more profound theoretical perception of the

mathematical concepts presented with the incorporation of computer software. Computer

proficient educators discovered that the incorporation of computer assisted instruction in

the classroom epitomizes the perspectives of constructivist teaching and collaborative

learning methods that highlight student-led activities (Funkhouser, 2002; Serhan, 2004).

The inconsistencies that exist between the group that utilized computer-assisted

instruction and the group that was pencil and paper based could be due to the integration

of multimedia teaching programs (Ortega-Tudela & Gómez-Ariza, 2006). The programs

enhanced the effectiveness of learning mathematics for individuals with developmental

disabilities. Additionally, the strategy and methodology utilized to teach

developmentally disabled children had influence in their learning capacity. Thus, the

author suggested that the use of an approach that assists the understanding of specific

theoretical perceptions such as number and measurement permits the acquisition of such

abstract concepts for people with psychological disabilities (Gersten, 2000). When

compared to conventional, teacher-led drills and exercises, Traynor (2003) discovered

that CAI enhanced mathematics achievement scores of regular and special education as

well as ESL proficient middle school students on their math pretests and posttests. The
 40

learners who the author examined included intact groups arranged into exploratory

classes by the junior high school administrators.

The necessity to comprehend and the ability to utilize mathematics in daily

situations and in the workplace continue to rise (NCTM, 2006). In the world that is

constantly changing, individuals who comprehend and are capable of performing

mathematical functions will have considerably increased probabilities for influencing the

future. Based on the research done by NCTM (2006), technology is crucial in explaining

and studying arithmetic because it shapes the subject that is communicated and heightens

student learning.

When students comprehend the value of math in everyday living, they are more

apt to participate in learning mathematical concepts. Technology assists learners in

understanding the relationship between mathematics and the world that they live in.

Through association and exploitation of various numerical representations, technology

provides the learners the opportunity to concentrate on absorbing mathematical theory in

place of computations alone. Computer integration supports analytical thinking skills

development essential for advancement in mathematics and in life. The continued

investigation of technology application in the classroom such as evaluating several

methods of usage to assess their success is significant as modern technologies develop at

fast speed.

Types of CAI

Through the work of Atkinson (1968) and Watson (1072), computer assisted

instruction were originally apportioned into groups. However, since CAI software

programs continue to vary in procedures, styles, and characteristics, they are currently
 41

categorized based on their delivery systems: (a) drill-and-practice sessions, (b) tutorials

sessions, (c) simulations, (d) instructional games, and (e) problem solving programs

(Robyler & Doering 2009).

Drill-and-practice. The first category of CAI is drill-and-practice sessions. As a

supplement to conventional classroom instruction, technology can be used to add drill-

and-practice procedures as appropriate exercises. With numerous benefits over the

traditional class worksheet, drill-and-practice training offer the following advantages: (a)

reduce time needed to complete a lesson by providing spontaneous score and immediate

feedback, (b) repetitive exercises on a lesson taught at an earlier time, (c) increase variety

of questions at the appropriate educational level, and (d) increase in the amount of test

questions presented for each unit (Ash, 2004).

The pedagogical function for drill-and-practice programs involves any subject

where mastery learning of fundamental skills is preferred. During the implementation of

the drill-and-practice program, the computer poses a question to the student, the student

provides a reply, then the computer will give feedback concerning whether the response

is accurate or inaccurate (Robyler, 2009). Some examples of the suitable usage of drill-

and-practice software include memorization of math fact families, terminology practice,

grammar exercises, and foreign language training. A type of compensation or reward

usually follows an accurate response from a student during drill-and-practice.

Tutorials. The second category of CAI is tutorial software. The employment of

interactive multimedia tools provide students the opportunity to discover and create their

own individual knowledge dynamically. It can assist in making learning more enjoyable

(Moreno & Mayer, 2007). The tutorial software can render a productive and interactive
 42

learning atmosphere that encourages a variety of learning approaches (Birch & Sankey,

2008).

Integrating multimedia software treatment can enhance graphic, vocal, and

dynamic learning. This process enables the students to regulate the progression and

speed of the material that is advantageous to them. When learning is student-centered

wherein they have some influence over the rate of instructional exercises, individuals

may obtain learning more effectively (Mayer, 2006).

The utilization of online tutorials was deemed to have a constructive effect and

overall increase on learners’ ability to grasp the content. A substantial correlation

between expediency, degree of knowledge, and a non-linear navigation was recounted by

Mitchell, Chen, and Macredie (2005). Thus, online interactive learning offers an

unconventional technique of conveying directives that can be modified to assist various

learning approaches.

In the state of Nevada, one metropolitan school district received a state grant to

pilot and implement an examination and a corrective web site. The research was

conducted by Biesinger and Crippen (2008) and 64 students from10 various high schools

concurred to join in the experimental study. Each school was represented by one

educator who participated in a two-hour workshop prior to applying the interactive

tutorial program in their own domain. Using the program as a supplement to a traditional

classroom, every educator who signed up for the pilot study was a math specialist with a

forte on remediation. The participants in the pilot study comprised of students in 12th

grade who had yet to pass the Nevada High School Proficiency Examination in
 43

Mathematics (NHSPEM). The subjects for the implementation study consisted of 10th

grade students taking the test as first timers.

The goal was to assist learners in preparation for the NHSPEM, thus increase

student performance. The intervention was aimed to offer learners a supplemental

activity that provided access to mathematical education using technology inside and

outside the classroom. In their findings based on the data gathered from both studies, the

authors specified that students who accessed the interactive tutorial gained from the

supplemental activity.

More specifically, in favor of the study cohort, the implementation group findings

revealed a statistically substantial difference in advancement. With the prospect to

become acquainted with the standardized test questions and the delivery of precise and

constant feedback, the tutorial program proved advantageous to learners taking the test

for the first time. The interactive tutorial website was best utilized as an additional

practice for learners with explicit need for individual intensive tutoring (Biesinger &

Crippen, 2008, p. 13).

Simulations. The third category of CAI is simulation software. Simulation

games represent directives that engage individuals in exercises that call for personal

assessment of mocked situations to adequately learn the magnitudes of their resolve.

This type of instruction is conveyed using technology and is inherently exciting and

stimulating (Griffiths, Parke, & Wood, 2007). In explaining the concept of interactive

cognitive complexity, Tennyson and Jorczak (2008) proposed that simulation games are

progressively successful than other directives because they instantaneously involve

emotional and intellectual development.

 44

Engaging its subjects to the tenets of dynamic learning and recreation is the

principal approach when simulation games are utilized. The dynamic learning

philosophy offers the participants two imperative responsibilities: firstly, vital decision-

making opportunities and secondly, dependence on inductive knowledge when surveying

the assignment to extrapolate the procedures for successful execution. On the other hand,

the recreation concept continually occupies the participant in learning practices that

heightens subject impetus (Bell & Kozlowski, 2008). By promoting helpful prompts of

self- worth, simulation games endorse mastery learning to transpire by allowing subjects

to go through the following experiences: use familiarity and ability, enrich rational and

intellectual activities as one enthusiastically connects with the concept, and advocate

constructive and expressive stimulation (Kozlowski & Bell, 2006). This conception is in

harmony with the beliefs that promote simulation games as a source of increased self-

worth when studying how to handle autistic youngsters (Bizo, Hall, Randell, Remington,

& 2007).

In the meta-analysis performed by Vogel et al. (2006) concerning the scholastic

efficiency of simulation games for instructing students, the authors denoted superior

improvement for subjects that received simulation games versus conventional classroom

instruction (z = 6.05, n = 8,549). Similarly, in the meta-analysis conducted by Sitzmann

(2011), the researcher disclosed the following outcomes with favorable results for the

group that received simulation games: (a) in the area of declarative learning, 11%

advancement, (b) in the level of technical learning, 14% progression, (c) in memory or

recollection capacity, 9% superior, (d) in delivery method, 17% more successful, and (e)

in classroom interaction, 5% more applicable than the conventional classroom procedure.

 45

Based on these outcomes, the researcher concluded that the recent findings are consistent

with other meta-analyses on computer-assisted instruction. Therefore, the author

submitted that when appropriately applied, technology can increase student learning

achievements.

Instructional games. The fourth category of CAI is instructional games. The

theory of conventional classroom learning is continuously altered and modified by the

expansion of technology and communication. This advancement offers the confirmation

of learning without the constraints of schedule and location. Computer-assisted

instruction software programs render inspiration and promote profound learning

experiences to students (Hung-Pin Shih, 2008). Students’ enthusiasm during regular

classwork exercises and testing is at a low level because exercise represents repetition of

work. In many cases this results to declining output, thus, utilizing methods that

intensifies motivation is in order (Allessi & Trollip, 2001).

Instructional games have numerous factors that provide impetus and the aspiration

for achievement is most vital (Yee, 2007). A study conducted by Bekir Celen (2009),

which included 157 high school learners, was intended to assess the effects of scoring

high and seeing the student’s name on the top of the list after web-based drills. The

author reported the website with the greatest competitive characteristics yielded the most

progressive outcomes. The process steered to transform the learners’ intentions to

explore the website and the occurrence of their visit. It was concluded in this research

that there was no discrepancy in enthusiasm between male and female genders in

instructional games.
 46

It was denoted in the research performed by Kula and Erdem’s (2005) that

although quantifiable effort was not measured, the value of motivation in learning was

detected. In their study, the authors declared that the following are the attributes present

in the instructional games that attracted the learners: to collect bonuses, to accumulate

points, pointers and cues, amenities, obtain tallies, discard numbers, procedures, to

enhance knowledge, songs, influence, and facade. In contrast, in a study presented by

Tezel (1999), it was pointed out that an extreme competitive disposition of learners had

zero influence on scholastic attainment. The researcher mentioned that competitive and

spirited driven individuals prefer to be compelling and be regarded as such. Recognition

is highly significant to them. The practicality of the instructional games discloses its

appealing and academic elements (Prensky, 2001). It is proposed by Malone (1980) that

the intrinsic stimulus that is an essential part of motivation in the environment that

formulate successful learning includes creativity, inquisitiveness, and challenge.

Problem solving. The fifth category of CAI is problem solving. The ability to

provide instantaneous feedback to learners and as well as immediate scoring on learners’

classwork, tests, and projects are some of the benefits of CAI problem solving method.

Besides furnishing spontaneous feedback to learners, pointers and suggestions to assist in

solving problems can be rendered (Heffernan, Mendicino, & Razzaq, 2009).

When the concentration is on problem solving as a compilation of minor element

abilities and not as solitary academic skill, problem-solving programs are deemed to be at

its highest success (Mayer, 2008). In preparation for students to be successful in utilizing

the problem-solving approach, appropriate training includes educating learners about the

process of problem solving prior to mastering the concept, explicit problem-solving

 47

abilities, interaction regarding problem-solving method, and drills concerning procedures

involved in problem-solving. Accordingly, its delivery in an organized and controlled

procedure and not in slow process is more applicable.

Utilizing the computer-assisted instruction problem-solving method,

independently, is inadequate in cultivating learners’ elemental and theoretical

intelligence. Allowing students to solve problems through trial-and-error instead of using

only distinct and precise procedures is appropriate. This method will incite students to

shift their mathematical abilities to tangible applications. The merit of the problem-

solving programs can be beneficial to learners with unpredictable skills in problem

solving, from the amateurish to the more seasoned problem solver. After conducting a

pilot study involving 35 individuals using the Learning Online Network with a Computer

Assisted Personalized Approach (LON-CAPA) program, a methodical problem-solving

program that offers instantaneous feedback on the tactic usability, Gok (2010)

accounted that learners should distinctly comprehend the mathematical theory and

problem-solving skills to increase mathematical achievement.

Differences between Traditional Classroom and CAI

Traditional classroom instruction differs from CAI in three areas: (a) style

of communication, (b) mentor-learner interactions, and (c) learning atmosphere (Lewis,

2010). In CAI, small amounts of oral communication exist as the computer corresponds

in visual approach. The most significant feature of traditional instruction is the

interaction between the mentor and the learner (Steinberg, 1991). A mentor can evaluate

student learning and understanding of the subject matter through inquiries, reviewing

progress, and providing feedback.

 48

The use of computer-assisted instruction can be carried out in numerous

arrangements and functions through various conceptual instrumentations. With

opportunities of daily drills and prompt response in a stimulating and inspiring setting,

technology can assist in reaching intellectual objectives (Kaput, Hegedus, & Lesh, 2007).

Utilizing software designs can encourage learners to create numerical procedures that

promote knowledge and expertise by gradually tracking the formula on a question, a step

at a time, prior to interceding when execution disagrees with the correct procedure

(Corbett, Koedinger, & Hadley, 2001; Roschelle, 2003). Technology validates systems

that already exist in the classroom such as developmental evaluation and social practices

(Roschelle, 2003).

One of the most celebrated methods for learning recognized to be educationally

sensible and cost effective is the integration of computer-assisted instruction in the

classroom (Lim, Petty, & Zulau, 2007). Nevertheless, the need for individualization and

differences in ways of knowledge acquisition must be taken into consideration when

integrating technology into the curriculum. Similarly, understanding the personal

requisite and the impact of technology on each learner needs to be reflected in the

development and production of new software programs.

To solely investigate based on the technology element is to neglect the most

crucial element of this interface between mortal and machine (Smith, 2009). In an

experimental study of CAI versus traditional classroom curriculum done by Smith

(2009), he proposed that the increased scores from pretest to posttest were due to the

dynamic learning of the students and the repetitive exercises extended daily through the

assimilation of wireless networks. The researcher concluded that outcomes with

 49

constructive bearings toward the practice of computer integration in the classroom

revealed that the success of the lesson was not automatically based on the method of

technology used but by the treatment of the technology to the content area that caused the

directive to be successful (Smith, 2009).

Traditional instruction is distinguished by guided teaching which applies the

educator-focused approach of delivering instruction while taking on the position of

professional, specialist, and ideal (Spradlin, 2009). Utilizing similar instructional

procedures with which the teachers have been trained and feel at ease is the inclination

for many educators when delivering instruction. While the educator lectures, the learners

pay attention and take notes.

After explaining the lesson and the stage-by-stage processes, the educator will

support the lesson with exercises. Collaboration between the students is not practiced

and interaction is reduced to learners replying to the teacher’s inquiry. Traditional

instruction is entirely lectured and has not been successful in teaching mathematics

advancement (Spradlin, 2009, p.33). On the other hand, the use of computers and the

Internet allow for innovative ways to convey instruction that offer the learners choices of

what time to learn, where to learn, and how to learn mathematics. As a substitute to

traditional instruction, CAI promotes individualized instruction, controlled exercises,

spontaneous feedback, and all day access (Bottge, Grant, Rueda, & Stephens, 2010).

Implementing CAI in the Curriculum

To promote progression amongst the series of proficiencies, the majority

of educators today would concur with the essentials for expounding instructing

stratagems and prospectuses. But the inquiry continues concerning what mathematical
 50

concepts are valuable (Roschelle, Singleton, Sabelli, Pea, & Bransford, 2008) as well as

the features of the type of studying activities would advocate this learning (Greeno &

Collins, 2008). Many instructional approaches are localized in a gamut of steering

learners through a progression of prearranged technical measures or requiring learners to

work out answers but conveying energetic teaching that esteems theoretical

comprehension while encouraging practical fluency is the pivotal pedagogical concern

(Lesh, Yoon, & Zawojewski, 2007). Thus, better-quality learning transpires when

instructional activities implicate associating theories with distinct depiction of

conceptions (Pashler et al., 2007).

Based on the reported data, learners who received traditional math instruction plus

CAI displayed considerable gains compared to the control group. This outcome is

indicative of the effectiveness and efficiency of the methodology of the intervention used

for these particular fourth grade mathematics students. According to the theory of

mastery, learning for mathematics by Suppes and Zanotti (Institute of Education

Sciences, 2009) traditional instruction in mathematics supplemented by CAI would result

to advanced levels of student success.

Similar to the findings of a study conducted by Wood (Pearson Digital Learning,

2006), CAI had an explicit impact on student learning. A group of 18 learners

participated in the research study for over two years and another group of 28 learners

participated for over a year. Utilizing SuccessMaker math program, both groups spent 16

minutes every day and at least 80 minutes every week. At the end of first year, 88% of

the participants displayed improvement.

 51

After studying the effects of CAI on mathematics in two Tennessee middle

schools, Ash (2005) reported that there were substantial gains noted on the achievement

scores of students who participated in traditional math instruction plus the CAI program.

For one hour weekly, the experimental group received additional CAI using the Orchard

Math Software as an intervention. The control group, however, received traditional math

instruction only. The research was conducted for over 11 weeks utilizing a pretest and

posttest both of which were “criterion-referenced tests” produced by Prentice Hall.

In studies reviewed by Clement and Sarama (2009), they confirmed affirmative

outcomes of CAI programs on learner performance. Additionally, computer integration

in the classroom provides instructors with the opportunity to finalize individual analysis,

categorize instruction, adjust pacing, offer broad drill and exercise, and give immediate

feedback (Flippo & Caverly, 2008). Utilizing the SuccessMaker CAI package, Powell,

Aeby, and Carpenter-Aeby (2003) found that scholastic results of troublesome subjects

could be increased after mentor-assisted intervention.

The authors of three studies that assessed the SimCalc methodology concentrated

on student learning of advanced mathematics in junior high school and disclosed

significant numerical results (Roschelle et al., 2010). The SimCalc method is a

technology-based approach to higher mathematical theories and proficiencies. It was

projected to assist students to acquire cutting-edge mathematical skills without neglecting

one’s advancement in fundamental math facts. This approach was created to work with

existing curriculum and educator workshops and training. To strongly assimilate

software programs, curriculum, and professional development is a strategic factor that

supported the mentors and learners to experience similar intervention.

 52

In general, the conception that technology by itself has an intense influence on

learning has been abandoned by the researchers. More accurately, as an alternative, the

authors endorsed exploring interventions that combine dynamics such as instructions,

curriculum, technology, educators’ workshops and training , evaluations, and educational

management (Roschelle, Pea, Hoadley, Gordin, & Means, 2000). Overall, it was

reported that increased achievements confirmed that the implementation of CAI in the

curriculum such as the example of SimCalc was successful in empowering an expansive

group of instructors in a diversified venue stretching students’ learning of higher

mathematical concepts and skills (Roschelle et al., 2010).

Following one year of exposure, learners who received pedagogical activities that

reinforced fundamental math facts in the framework of realistic challenges surpassed

students who did not receive math subsidized technical instructional activities (Alfeld,

Jensen, Lewis, Pearson, & Stone, 2006). The advancement was due to the technological

instruction of basic mathematics skills and applied problems proficiency methods. The

procedures were entrenched in the daily instructional activities that were carefully

designed by professional/technological specialty educators and mathematics instructors

brought together by the National Research Center for Career and Technical Education

(Bottge, Grant, Stephens, & Rueda, 2010). Educators in the state-of-the-art technology

education courses engaged computers and proactive presentations (International Society

for Technology in Education, 2007) unlike their counterparts, in a traditional classroom

where “tool skills” were simply accentuated (Frank & Barzilai, 2006).

School principals are more familiar undertaking language arts illiteracy than

tackling mathematics innumeracy, hence, decision-making concerning how best to

 53

present math education turns out to be challenging (McEwan, 2000). Understanding and

sensitivity in adapting techniques to execute innovative computer applications that

guarantee to enhance acquiring knowledge in mathematics is a priority (Shelly, 2002).

Ultimately, respect and compassion must be considered when devising suitable pedagogy

for slow learners who frequently demonstrate antagonism towards traditional classroom

mathematics instruction (Hand, 2010).

The employment of CAI offers unlimited amount of data that can provide

significant information in assessing students’ knowledge of the subject at hand. The time

required to complete the assessment using CAI is considerably curtailed. Any issues

pertaining to the availability and accessibility of data and information of each student are

simply reduced and easily identified by the teacher. Subsequently, after mastering each

concept, each learner can move on to the succeeding section of the content. The mastery

learning of a specific unit can be obtained effortlessly with the use of computers.

Mastery Learning and Active Learning

Systematically arranging the concepts and skills that the instructor aspires

to teach the students, normally requiring five to ten days teaching time, the strategy of

mastery learning is to provide a concise developmental evaluation. The concept of

mastery learning is concentrated on the objectives of the previously learned ideas and

skills. The goal of the evaluation is to offer constructive information to the students

regarding their learning. This leads to supporting learners in ascertaining what has been

learned thus far and what other knowledge can be discovered and acquired excellently

from the unit instead of indicating unit completion (Bloom, Hasting, & Madaus, 1971).
 54

The developmental evaluation includes detailed and precise remedial materials

that are customized allowing learners to work only on concepts or skills that are needed

to be mastered. Averting inconsequential learning difficulties from becoming

complicated learning challenges, the employment of the remedial activities is necessary.

Becoming proficient by learning the course objectives and obtaining criterion knowledge

needed to achieve in the succeeding units, increases student learning.

Utilizing the developmental evaluation procedure followed by the application of

remedial activities will deliver relevant and more superior pedagogy which is not always

achievable in a conventional classroom setting. The process will inspire the belief that all

students will comprehend competently and accurately master the course objectives,

hence, condensing the disparity of leaners’ proficiency and diminishing the achievement

breach. One of the core foundations for computer-assisted instruction is the philosophy

that all students can learn with the provision of adequate time and sufficient individual

consideration (Bloom, 1984). Concentrating on the procedure of mastering the content

and not giving attention solely to the content is the main objective of mastery learning.

The Keller’s Personalized System of Instruction with four differentiating

attributes is another model of mastery learning that can be applied when integrating

computer-assisted instruction in the classroom curriculum (Keller, 1968). Initially,

instead of using the verbal approach to teaching, the instructor chooses and produces

relevant written activities with appropriate learning goals and reading comprehension.

This activity communicates the increased use of written and printed resources that may

not be always the priority method used in a conventional classroom set up. Secondly,

learners are given the opportunity to complete their classwork without the pressure of
 55

time. Thirdly, evidence of mastery learning must be exhibited prior to moving on to the

next stage. Conclusively, through the availability of educational materials, learners can

utilize an abundant supply of resources to their advantage to prevail over their

inadequacies (Keller, 1968).

The integration of CAI in education heightens the theory of mastery learning.

The opportunity to use the computer in the classroom allocates individualization allowing

each learner to function distinctively on his or her rate, which is one of the keystones of

mastery learning (Vockell, 1990). Established on the principle of skill acquisition

(Anderson, Douglass, & Fincham, 1997) and on the actuality that learners vary in their

ability, proficiency, and skill advancement, an affirmation of the system must be

confirmed then converted into performance of gradual and construed procedures.

Once students mastered their classroom procedures, it steers learners to

automaticity. At this stage, only educative comments from the teachers are required.

One-on-one guidance is not crucial. However, repetition and continuous practice are

vital (Schoppek & Tullis, 2010). This approach gives the instructor a chance to focus on

the learner’s weakness. With the help of the computer, every student can be assessed

prior to the introduction of a lesson and during the culmination of a lesson.

Much like the manner in which technology is revolutionizing the direction that the

U.S. is carrying out business worldwide, the use of technology in the classroom is

shifting the methods in which American schools are handling pedagogy that will promote

student-learning achievement. Through the use of the mastery learning, a paradigm shift

in student achievement can be expedited. The use of the mastery learning approach

combined with exercises that enhances critical thinking will generate a learning
 56

atmosphere that is thought provoking and progressive (Strange, 2007). He challenged

educators to utilize concepts that promote mastery learning strategies to stimulate and

inspire students to learn beyond the fundamentals.

While it is true that the ease of fundamental mathematical procedures is a

prerequisite for problem solving, the preparation of acquiring mathematical abilities and

skills has a vital role in current mathematics. Research conducted by Schoppek and

Tullis (2010) indicated that a significant increase in mathematical skills and problem

solving was linked to individualized repetition when applied in an adequate amount of

time, even after a follow-up episode of 12 weeks. As a method to advance its

effectiveness while minimizing time spent in instructing skills, to alleviate instructors

from the overwhelming task of analyzing each student, choosing problems, and

instantaneous corrective feedback, the authors propositioned individualization of drill and

practice.

In the study, students from four third grade classes, totaling 113 students, from

three primary schools participated in the experiment. The study involved 57 participants

in the training sessions while the control group consisted of 56 remaining students. The

authors indicated that greater advancement was noted in the trained group more than the

untrained group albeit, various classes had diverged pretest levels.

Overall, the trained group displayed gains from the pretest to the posttest as

determined and computed by Analysis of Variance (ANOVAs) with the aggregate scores

in pretest and posttest as repeated measures. According to the authors, it was anticipated

that substituting individualized exercises in place of some arithmetic units would provoke

a significant progress in learners’ mathematics skills, which was one of the hypotheses in
 57

this study. The rationale that working with the computer delivers a compounded amount

of scholastic commitment as a function of educational acquisition time, which is a vital

provision for learning explains their projections.

Computer-assisted instruction acknowledges the application of manifold sensory

approaches that allows for prospects to allocate scholastic subject matter into reduced

portion, focusing on specific goals, emphasizing crucial details, and encountering

instantaneous response or advice (Du Paul & Weyandt, 2006). The researchers of an

experimental study who arbitrarily chose 40 participants that formed two groups,

experimental and control, from two adjacent scholastic institutions in Pakistan indicated

that the integration of CAI inside the classroom validated its advantage over the usage of

classroom lecture alone. The study included a pretest, which was distributed to all

cohorts prior to the commencement of the experiment. The same exact test was

administered as a posttest after the intervention. The outcomes included a 60-70%

student improvement in the overall reasoning and critical thinking achievement for the

experimental group subjected to classroom instruction plus CAI supplement over the

control group.

With a high probability to support learners to participate in intricate mathematical

procedures, computer technology is commonly known as an appealing device (Zbiek,

Heid, Blume, & Dick, 2007). In training learners to become technologically

knowledgeable in preparation for the space-age future, the public is stimulated by the

launching of innovative technological advancements. Although, except for the use of

calculators and greater computer accessibility, researchers from the past publicized that

there is a need for technology to propagate in approaches that will encourage learners to
 58

participate in critical thinking exercises (Becker, 2001; U.S. Department of Education,

2008; Wenglinsky, 2005).

In an organized setting and by endorsing active learning, the use of computer-

based programs can empower learners to manage information to be able to associate them

to their previous experience (Berger, Mary, Shaw, & Sosa, 2011). Integrating the use of

CAI software programs with real description of comparable concepts increase student

engagement in learning the assignment and promote avenues that incorporate and prepare

their grasping of theories (Bottge, Grant, Rueda, & Stephens, 2010, p.101). Interactive

technology programs offer learners the opportunity to manage how resources are

expounded, thus enhancing the student involvement with course material and content

(Correador, Larreamendy-Jones, Leinhardt, 2005).

Computer Software Programs

Computer-assisted instruction software varies in approaches and types as

well as in quality. It is essential for educators to understand the significance, features,

and delivery methods of each software program to ascertain what style is suitable for

each educational setting. Consisting of a set of computer–based courses, the

SuccessMaker program is utilized to supplement the conventional K-8 classroom in

reading and mathematics (Pearson Digital Learning, 2005). The producers of

SuccessMaker aspire to increase understanding in mathematics by utilizing adaptive

lessons customized to the learner’s math level.

After a computer analysis of the learner’s skills development, exclusive sections

of the program are allocated to each individual with new skills introduced as they become

appropriate. Performance is calculated by the probability of the learner responding

 59

correctly to the next question as the learner advances through the program. This

establishes the next stage of the lesson (Pearson Digital Learning, 2005). SuccessMaker

has been used with at-risk individuals and overachievers, general and special education

students, as well as English as a second language (ESL) learner. It has been utilized in

over 1,700 institutions all over the world (Suppes & Zanotti, 1996).

The fluency of fundamental math processes is a prerequisite for math problem

solving and the preparation of skills takes part in current mathematics instruction

(Schoppek & Tulis, 2010). The authors believed that in order to curtail the time

consumed with the training of skills, personalization of practice is utilized as a measure

to increase effectiveness. They created training software called Merlin’s Math Mill

(MMM) to use as a device to relieve educators of the overwhelming task of individual

analysis, selection of challenges, and immediate feedback.

Culminating the study, the investigators concluded that increased advancement in

math skills and problem solving were associated with a reasonable amount of

individualized practice. However, the training software, MMM, presented an assortment

of glitches involving multiplication, division, and multiple step problems. Evaluating the

justification of choosing and conducting word problems using MMM needs to be

reconsidered to create more appealing word problems and proportioned computation

problems (Cheng, Harter, Ku, Liu, & Thompson, 2007).

A single-subject study for six primary grade students with cognitive and learning

disabilities on CAI and mathematics to examine the efficiency of multimedia software

was conducted by Irish (2002) utilizing Memory Math program. The outcomes signified

that increased time spent in utilizing the software equaled greater gains, thus CAI was
 60

successful for improving learners’ accuracy with fundamental skills. Strategies that

students learned from performing computer evaluations of basic information were applied

to paper-and-pencil examinations.

Among studies, similar research work (Fuchs et al., 2006; Xin, 1999) investigated

the application of CAI software programs such as Math Keys Fraction and Decimal Maze

and Math Shop Jr. The evaluation compared the use of the software programs as a group-

collaborative learning exercise versus the entire classroom activity without the use of the

software programs. The study involved 118 students with and without disabilities. Xin

(1999) discovered an upsurge in mathematical skills as assessed by the Stanford

Achievement Test (SAT) for all learners using the programs through a pretest-posttest

design. Nonetheless, with or without disability, learners in the cooperative learning

condition, outshine the learners in the whole class situation. Fuchs et al., (2006),

however observed that CAI enhanced learners’ addition skills but not subtraction skills

and their performance did not translate to mathematics story problems. Their data and

statistics were gathered on a CAI software program to instruct the skill of number

combinations with 33 first graders with low accomplishment in reading and arithmetic.

In the St. Lucie County Public Schools in Florida, both Destination Reading and

Math programs were utilized as an enhancement to supplement the primary curriculum

either as reinforcement for learning, exercise, remediation, enhancement, advancement,

or as ways to offer modified or group education in a differentiated paradigm (Roberts,

2009). The objective of including the instructional technology in education was to

improve learner success and accomplishment by incorporating into, and supplementing

the application of the curriculum, instruction, and learner evaluation in classrooms. It

 61

was hypothesized that CAI programs provide benefits such as personalized education,

access to advanced level content by creating multifaceted concepts simpler, and

additional links to a comprehensive selection of learning opportunities, which all support

sound pedagogy and the ventures that teachers want to offer to their pupils.

In addition, the research also put emphasis on the learners and their overall school

performance in St. Lucie Public School District over the past five years with the

emphasis on the value and usefulness of the Destination Reading and Destination Math

Solution programs. The findings included extensive comparison between the number of

instructional days that students spent on Destination Reading and Math Solutions

learning activities in reading and mathematics in the 31sampled schools. According to

the investigation, schools where learners devoted nominal time and frequency on CAI

learning tasks revealed an inclination of decreased performance in math and reading on

the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) than institutions that had

considerably increased CAI time-on-task.

The results in this study supported the hypothesis that CAI is a practical approach

that must be integrated in the collection of scholastic involvement that is offered to

learners and is a valuable tool of educators in meeting the diverse needs of the students.

It also confirmed the belief that the implementations of a well-designed Computer-

Assisted Instructional program such as Destination Reading and Math Solutions could

present the opportunity to simplify the instructional templates for math and reading to

other scholastic venues (Roberts, 2009). Research regarding the effectiveness of the CAI

programs in relation to the usage of software products was led by Campuzano, Dynarski,

Agodini, and Rall (2009). A group of investigators carried out an experimental project in
 62

which educators in the same schools were unsystematically designated to utilize a

software product while the researchers gathered test scores and other applicable statistics

to measure the success of the software products.

In April of 2007, a report on the findings was published with results from the

school year 2004-2005 indicating that after one academic year of using the CAI software

products, distinction in student test scores was not statistically noteworthy (Dynarski et

al., 2007). However, the data gathered in the 2005-2006 scholastic year wherein

educators who persisted with the research had fresh cohorts of learners and one year of

familiarity using the software products, revealed mixed results (Dynarski et al., 2007).

For algebra I, influence on the student SAT test scores revealed considerably greater

scores in the second year versus the first academic year. This study is partially consistent

with the findings conducted by Robert (2009). The product’s effect on learner test

scores, for sixth grade math, was notably inferior in the second year than in the first year.

The drawbacks of the research precluded straightforward assessment of product

impact. Product efficiency may have been directly related to specific product features

and variations due to an assortment of choices agreed to be used by schools and districts.

The model of the study did not eliminate the likelihood that a product that the research

found to be incompetent could be successful if executed by other schools. In addition,

gathered data, which was limited, in the second year prevented the research from

investigating how educators had possibly utilized the CAI software products another way

in the second year in comparison with the first year, and from examining how classroom

procedures and experiences may have changed between products.

 63

In a research performed by Beal, Adams, and Cohen (2010), a group of 442 ninth

grade students all enrolled in an algebra class, were subjected to a computer assisted

instruction program. The population included 209 English Language Learners (ELL) and

233 students whose initial language is English. Hoping for the learners to advance to

more sophisticated algebraic problems, educators in the study opted for students to

review a pre-algebra online tutorial. An online-based tutorial program called

AnimalWatch that includes basic math fact families, fractions, measurement problems,

decimal numbers, ratios and proportions, and percentages, was utilized as the CAI

software.

Based on the previous score from the preceding set of questions but within the

learner’s skill to solve the problem, the computer software designated mathematical

expressions that were predicted to be thought provoking. As the learner established

ability to compute questions concerning a specific proficiency, the problem complexity

intensified. Progressing from basic calculation problems (add, subtract, multiply, and

divide), the learners would be approved to advance into a set of questions with fractions

prior to pre-algebraic expressions. For data sources and scoring, the following

combination of test modules were applied: (a) using the California Standard Test-Math

(CST-Math), the performance groups based on the scale scores included over 80% far

below and below basic, (b) study-specific-pre-and-posttests (software integrated)

revealed overall low performance, pretest = 30% and posttest = 34%, (c) word problem

solving graded by math instructors indicated that 40% of the learners were incompetent

in Algebra 1.
 64

The findings are in harmony with other authors (National Clearinghouse for

English Language Acquisition, 2007; California Department of Education, 2007) who

reported that learners who are not able to comprehend questions offered in English

curriculum will also have less success in mathematics in comparison with students who

are proficient in reading English. In addition, not passing Algebra 1 in secondary school

in Los Angeles, California, seems to be a compelling forecaster of dropouts since over

half of ELL students registered in Algebra 1 course did not succeed in passing the class

the first time (Helfand, 2006). There is a flourishing corroboration that mathematics

achievement for students in secondary schools is associated with inadequate English

competency (California Department of Education, 2007).

The History and Characteristics of the Mad Dog Math Program

A supplementary program to any math curriculum, MDM is utilized in any

classroom or home school venue. It has taken the fundamental facts of mathematics and

reduced them down into bite-sized pieces by fact families that any learner can master.

The program is intended to complement the efforts of conventional classroom educators

through paper and pencil drill-and-practice as well as implementing a corresponding

computer software program (Kotoff, 2011).

In 2010, three educators from a private sector in Central California evaluated the

effectiveness of the program during its implementation with a combined 63 students in

their three classrooms. The study was performed to ascertain if MDM provides

substantial increase in multiplication and division scores as a supplement to traditional

methods. Every day, the three classes used an identical math curriculum and completed

the same lesson at precisely the same time. One group was marked the MDM group (21
 65

students); and the two others were marked Control Group1 (22 students), and Control

Group 2 (20 students), respectively.

During the school year of 2009-2010, the MDM group‘s teacher administered a

pre, mid, and posttest to all three groups using the same instructions. The pretest was

given in October 2009, the mid-test was dispensed in February 2010, and a posttest was

distributed in May 2010. The two tests presented were as follows: a multiplication fact

test with 100 problems in random order, and a division fact test with 100 randomly

placed problem. On both tests, learners had one minute to complete as many questions as

possible. In addition to the traditional curriculum, only the MDM group received a 10-

minute paper-pencil drill sheet every day that began one day after the pretest was

implemented. Whereas MDM was utilized daily until the end of the school year by the

MDM group, the two control groups did not employ MDM.

Based on the data of the study, when compared to control groups, the researchers

concluded that MDM succeeded, largely, by total increased math tests scores in both the

areas of multiplication and division over both the control groups. The test scores

represented both multiplication with 117% test improvement and division 146 % test

improvement. The authors reported improvement over control groups for normalized test

scores (Kotoff, 2011).

Summary

The intention of the literature review was to identify the literature-based

investigations involving the success of CAI in primary grades. The review entailed

information about (a) Computer-Assisted Instruction, (b) the effectiveness of CAI in

mathematics, (c) the differences between traditional classroom and CAI, (d)
 66

implementation of CAI in the curriculum, (e) computer software programs, and (f) gender

differences in learning mathematics. There were ample endorsements from literature that

substantiated the hypothesis that computer assisted instruction enhances learning.

Nevertheless, there is a demand to further investigate how the use of technology inside

the classroom promotes student learning (Trenholm, 2006). In particular, the Mad Dog

Math program, which includes a set of computer-based progressions that allows learners

to function individually, at their own speed, in an attempt to assist students’

understanding while boosting mastery of basic math facts (Kotoff, 2007).

The above literature review evaluated a variety of past practices utilized by school

administrations and educators. The studies reviewed include information pertaining to

elementary school learners and the methodology used to assist in the delivery of

mathematics in the classroom and to aid learners in becoming proficient in mathematics.

The variations considered in terms of insufficiency and inadequacy of the various

research reviewed lead to the need for additional research within the scope of

understanding the use of computer-assisted instruction in mathematics in the primary

grade levels.

In an attempt to expand the present literature on computer assisted instruction, the

outcomes of this research can be appended to the studies accessible on the efficiency of

CAI. Consequently, the results from the study assisted to explicate the varied findings on

the value of CAI on student achievement in mathematics. The study also offered

statistically sound information to the insufficient quantity of literature available on the

effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction.

 67

Chapter 3: Research Method

The purpose of this research was to determine if the integration of CAI in a

mathematics education program at a local elementary school in Southern California

generated a considerable effect on the differences in mathematics achievement. The

method of this study was based on an examination of the influence of CAI on student

achievement conducted by Lewis (2010) and Ash (2004). This chapter commences with

a discussion of the explicit method and design of the study including reasoning as to why

a quantitative method design with mastery learning and active learning theoretical

framework had been chosen. To ascertain any possible gains in math achievement, a

pretest and posttest design was implemented. The tests were provided by the California

Department of Education. The strengths and weaknesses for the chosen design were

described in this section.

The materials and instrumentation used as well as the description of the

participants were also addressed. Operational defining of the independent variable,

MDM, the dependent variable, CST Posttest, and the covariate, CST pretest were

indicated together with references as to how confounding and intervening the variables.

In addition, both materials used and participants obtained during the study were

identified. Specifics relating to data gathering and analysis, methodological assumptions,

ethical assurances, delimitations, and the summary bring the chapter to completion. The

outcomes of the investigation are particularly significant to the school and the school

system in this study.

Current studies have been performed on the influence of computer-assisted

instruction on learner mathematics achievement in elementary school from kindergarten

 68

through twelfth grade. In this particular study, the author endeavored to fill the gap in

literature by investigating the following research questions and hypotheses:

Q1. After accounting for the pretest score, is there a significant difference on the

mean posttest score between students who were offered the MDM software supplement

program and those who were not?

Q2. Is there an interaction between gender (male or female) and treatment (MDM

supplement versus no MDM supplement) when evaluating posttest scores when pretest

scores are used as a covariate?

The following hypotheses were examined:

H10. There is no significant difference on the posttest scores between the students

who receive mathematics instruction using conventional math and MDM as a supplement

and students who receive conventional math instruction without the MDM supplement

when using pretest scores as a covariate.

H1a. There is a significant difference on the posttest scores between the students

who receive mathematics instruction using conventional math and MDM as a supplement

and students who receive conventional math instruction without the MDM supplement

when using pretest scores as a covariate.

H20. There is no significant interaction between gender (male versus female) and

treatment (MDM supplement versus no MDM supplement) when evaluating posttest

scores when pretest scores are used as a covariate.

H2a. There is a significant interaction between gender (male versus female) and

treatment (MDM supplement versus no MDM supplement) when evaluating posttest

scores when pretest scores are used as a covariate.

 69

Research Method and Design

For this study, the researcher chose the quantitative method, as it was appropriate

for investigating the effect of educational interventions (Ash, 2004; Lewis, 2010).

Quantitative studies utilize populations to produce numerical information in relation to

social phenomena in conjunction with statistical methods to evaluate the data. Such

studies can be experimental or non-experimental, having descriptive, causal-comparative,

or correlational designs (Borg, Gall, & Gall, 2006). The investigator used a quasi-

experimental, nonequivalent control group design, which was an appropriate substitute to

an experimental design when randomization was not feasible (Gall et al., 2006). The

classes were already composed; therefore, random allocation of students was not practical

or ethical.

Generating an unbiased assessment of the experimental group with the control

group, four equivalent classrooms were selected to indicate groups that were comparable

as possible. The investigator chose second and third grade classes; each class was

comparable in number of learners and gender. To have as close and realistic comparison

as possible so that any inequalities could be attributed to the intervention was the

objective of the class selection.

This study employed a multiple-variable, quasi-experimental design. The posttest

scores served as the dependent variable while the treatment of Mad Dog Math and gender

served as the independent variables. The pretest scores served as the covariate. Data

were collected to address research question one, which investigated if a difference existed

in achievement between students who participated in the MDM software supplement

program and those who did not. Mad Dog Math was geared to give students additional
 70

learning skill instruction and to assist them in increasing their ability to retrieve addition,

subtraction, multiplication, and division number combinations from memory.

The main features of MDM included standards-based content and instructional

design, individualized instruction, continuous progress evaluation, resources, and tools

for learners and teachers to use (Kotoff, 2007). Data were gathered to address question

number two, which examined if an interaction existed between gender (male or female)

and treatment (MDM supplement versus no MDM supplement) when evaluating posttest

scores when pretest scores were used as a covariate. The learners provided their age and

gender on each test.

Participants

For the purpose of this research, learners from second and third grade classes

were the target population. The second and third grade students were chosen because

they represented early grade levels where children are beginning to learn math facts and

because remediation is more difficult with learners in later grades (Hasselbring, Lott, &

Zydney, 2005). Participants were recruited from a K-8 elementary school in Southern

California. The January 2012 student enrollment data specified that 300 students were

present in the school. The student population was diverse. Second and third grade

students totaled 81, or approximately 27% of the student population. At the time of this

study, 17 regular classroom educators worked in the school, with responsibilities varying

from kindergarten through eighth grade (Gardena Valley Christian School, 2012).

For the experimental group, one third grade class and one second grade class,

totaling 39 students altogether, were solicited to participate in the study utilizing MDM

computer-assisted instructional software program in addition to the conventional teaching

 71

of mathematics inside the classroom. For the control group, one second grade class and

one third grade class, totaling 42 students altogether, were requested to participate in the

study using only the conventional method of teaching mathematics without any

supplements. The student population within the sample included black, white, Hispanic,

and Asian ethnicities. All learner ages ranged from seven to nine years old. The sample

was representative of the student body in a local elementary school in Southern

California where the research study took place.

A priori analyses was calculated for the F-test ANCOVA with fixed effects, main

effects, and interaction. The α for these tests was set for .05. To attain power of .80 and

a large effect size (f = .40), for a 2 x 2 ANCOVA, an overall sample size of 52 was

needed to identify an effect. However, a sample size of 128 was required when the

power analysis was calculated with a medium size effect (f =.25). Regrettably, due to the

limited enrollment that existed in many private schools, the researcher was not able to

obtain 128 students. Consequently, assigning the power analysis for medium effect size,

the 81students secured as participants potentially caused the study to be underpowered to

identify group differences. Using the sensitivity analysis, the researcher determined the

effect size (0.32) needed to achieve a 0.81 power with the given parameters.

Materials/Instruments

The following section includes an account of the instruments, description of the

data collection and analysis process, and concludes with a discussion concerning what is

considered to be the overall validity of the proposed study. The California Standard

Tests (CST) pretest was administered in the beginning of the study and the California

Standard Test posttest was administered at the end of the 10 week treatment to measure
 72

students’ achievement in the experimental and control groups. The pretest and posttest

measure of dependent variable was a criterion-referenced test developed in 2006 by

California educators and test developers particularly for the state of California. The CST

was intended as the “end-of-grade”/ “end-of- course” evaluation of the content standards.

Defining what learners should recognize and be able to accomplish in each grade and

field of study tested, the test measures learners’ advancement toward achieving

California’s state adopted academic content standards in English—language arts (ELA),

mathematics, science, and history- social science.

The CST pretest and posttest were centered on the math course objectives. For

the second grade students, the following academic content standards were included in the

test: number sense strand (including place value, addition, subtraction, multiplication,

division, and fractions), algebra and functions, measurements and geometry, statistics,

data analysis, and probability. For the third grade students, the academic content

standards included in the test were as follows: numbers sense (including place value,

fractions, decimals, addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division), algebra and

functions, measurement and geometry, statistics, data analysis, and probability.

Identical to the pretest assessment scoring procedures, the posttest was handled in

a similar manner. All math probes were graded by the researcher and a trained research

assistant utilizing scoring procedures determined by Shinn (2004). In this scoring

process, a learner was awarded credit for each question answered correctly. The

researcher and research assistant re-scored the probes collected from each of the two

administration points (pretest and posttest) for all four classes.

 73

The pretest and posttest measure of the dependent variable was a criterion-

referenced test developed in 2006. The items chosen for each California Standards Tests

were authored by distinctive groups of item writers with proficiency in the California

Content Standards. The California Standards Tests were developed to assess the

California Content Standards as well as to attain psychometric measures for difficulty and

reliability. Representative of the comprehensive content areas such as mathematics, each

CST items were created to support the California Content Standards. Therefore, the

content-related proof of validity concerns the degree to which the test items signify these

quantified content areas and cognitive elements (CST Technical report, 2006).

The construct of mathematics achievement was defined as scores on the

California Standard Test (Appendix A), which was the pretest and posttest. The CST is

given to all the students in public school annually, more specifically for the benefit of this

study, all second and third graders in the state of California. The exam evaluated the

performance of the California education system and its learners’ advancement toward

succeeding at California’s state-adopted academic content standards in mathematics and

other subject matter. The exam corresponded to what the learners should recognize and

be able to execute in each grade level and content area tested (CST, 2012). The validity

of the posttest was the extent to which it measured mathematics achievement. The exam

was a collection of test items representative of the various content areas.

The CST was created by California teachers and test creators exclusively for

California students. It is equivalent to the mathematics course objectives in comparison

to the importance rendered to each lesson during the year. This presented face validity.

The test questions were evaluated by California teachers and exam producers. This
 74

conveyed content validity. The reliability of the CST as a posttest was the extent to

which scores are free of arbitrary error, that is, the extent to which the test produced

reliable results.

Operational Definition of Variables

The study had the following variables: (a) gender, (b) Mad Dog Math, (c) student

math scores on the pretest and posttest. An operational definition of each variable is

explained below.

Gender. This independent variable was operationalized as male and female to be

investigated as a potential confounding variable for its effect on the posttest outcome.

The following representatives were coded in this research: F =1, M = 0 to evaluate

significance.

Mad Dog Math. This independent variable was defined as a supplemental math

program to any math curriculum for grades kindergarten through fifth grade. It was used

with computer or traditional methodologies, designed to assist students with improving

mastery of the basic math facts (Kotoff, 2011). The MDM dummy was coded E =1 and

C = 0.

Student math scores on the pretest and posttest. Student test scores were

obtained from the pretest, coded as Y1, given prior to the experimental manipulation.

The posttest, coded as Y2, was assigned 10 weeks after the learners received

conventional math instruction or conventional math instruction plus the Mad Dog Math

supplement. The test scores were submitted as raw scores, which fluctuated from 0 to 50

number of correct. The covariate was the pretest scores. The posttest was considered as
 75

the outcome or dependent measure. All test scores were normally distributed and

parametric statistics were appropriately applied.

Data Collection, Processing, and Analysis

Designating the power analysis for medium effect size, the 81students secured as

participants potentially caused the study to be underpowered to identify group

differences. Using the sensitivity analysis the researcher determined the effect size (0.32)

needed to achieve a 0.81 power with the given parameters. The overall number of

participants included students registered in one private academic institution.

To provide a reasonable comparison of the experimental group with the control

group, four distinctive classrooms were chosen in an effort to select groups that were as

comparable as possible. The experimental group received traditional math instruction

along with CAI while the control group received only traditional instruction. Both

groups received the CST math pretest.

After 10 weeks, at the completion of the intervention, the posttest was presented

to both groups. Student math posttest scores were compared across groups, controlling

for CST released test questions math pretest scores using statistical analyses. For all

major and demographic characteristics of the subjects, descriptive statistics were

obtained.

The study was conducted during the second semester of 2011-2012 school year.

Advantages and benefits to participation were explained to the students including the

option to decline without penalty. Intact classes were randomly allocated to either

control or experimental groups, because participants in this quasi-experimental research

design were not randomly distributed.

 76

All four classes received the CST released test questions that served as a pretest

prior to the commencement of the conventional math classroom instruction by itself or

the conventional math classroom instruction plus MDM as a supplement. Each learner’s

current level of performance was assessed using the pretest consisting of 50 items. This

pretest served as a baseline assessment and was scored by the researcher and a research

assistant. All participating classrooms executed group testing in a single day. The 50-

question pretest was divided into three sections lasting about 32 minutes per section. The

implementation of the posttest was a replica of the 50-question pretest given at the start

of the research project.

The statistical analysis was completed via the use of IBM SPSS 20 statistical

software. Utilizing a one-way ANCOVA, the mean of the experimental group’s CST

posttest was evaluated against the mean of the control group’s CST posttest utilizing the

CST pretests as a covariate to monitor any variations in ability before the MDM

treatment was introduced. Thus, only one factor was utilized in testing the first

hypothesis (experiment group versus control group). However, a two-way ANCOVA

was employed for the second hypothesis where two factors such as treatment (experiment

versus control) and gender (male versus female) were tested. The analysis of the

interaction effect ascertained whether males or females reacted inversely to the treatment.

Methodological Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

Internal validity. The features of internal validity were associated with the

representation of the all-inclusive content areas such as mathematics that each of the CST

questions signifies to promote the California Content Standards. Thus, the content-

associated evidence of validity affects the strength to which the test questions indicate
 77

these measured content areas and intellectual components (CST Technical report, 2006).

The validity of the posttest was the degree to which it measured the learners’

achievement in mathematics.

External validity. In terms of external validity, the computer laboratory as the

venue. The setting was maintained daily for a period of 10 weeks utilizing the same

location and time frame. It was vital to maintain the same setting and timing so as to

prevent decreasing the external validity of the study due to various activities such as unit

tests or class parties just before or after the experiment that could have affected the daily

regimen of drill and practice and confidence of the participants.

The ultimate limitation of this investigation included a sample size that was

adequate for identifying larger medium effects only. However, due to the limited number

of participants, the study was not substantial in revealing medium size effects. More

specific and noteworthy effects, such as interaction between groups and ethnicity, can be

identified if the sample size is much larger thus creating a higher power. The ethnicities

of the population within the samples included students with black, white, Hispanic, and

Asian background. However, since it is evident that one specific race dominated the

second and third grade classes at the time of the investigation, the issue concerning race

was not disaggregated. The sample was descriptive of the student body where the

investigation transpired.

Delimitations were also apparent in this research study. Limited subjects from

one private school located in a metropolitan area of Southern California imposed a time

and geographic constraints on the experiment. Having only one researcher was also a
 78

delimitation of this study. Limited amount of resources and time availability were

evident.

This study was conducted using second and third grade students delivered by two

methods of instruction: traditional classroom instruction only and traditional classroom

supplemented with CAI. The outcomes did not generalize to another institution that

utilized CAI in a distinct manner, including using the classroom computers versus

utilizing a laboratory setting. The number of learners in this study was restricted to those

enrolled in the second and third grade classes for school year 2011-2012. As many

components as conceivable were regulated in the design of the study. This research

accounted only for disparities in student mathematics achievement as evaluated by the

CST pretest and posttest and did not account for elements that may conceivably affect

performance including student attendance, after school activities, socio-economic

standing, ethnicity, parent education, or fear of mathematics.

Ethical Assurances

Significant portions of the research design included research assumptions. Thus,

every effort was attempted to guarantee outcome validity and reliability. All participants

were trained the year before, therefore, the researcher assumed that every learner was

familiar and knew how to access the MDM software program. The investigator did not

ascertain cause and effect association due to the absence of random assignment, which is

the nature of the quasi-experimental research design. The nonexistence of the placebo

treatment from the control group can ensue disparities during the actual investigation as a

consequence from the actual involvement of the CAI and the reality that the experimental

group had something exclusive that was absent in the control group.
 79

There are four categories of ethical issues that were strictly observed in this

dissertation: First is the issue of protection from harm. The second category includes the

informed consent. The third category is the right to privacy. The fourth category

involves honesty with professional colleagues.

Firstly, the outcomes of this research has the potential to contribute meaningful

information to current literature in the field of education while presenting minimal risks

or harm to all participants. The released test questions were taken from the Grade 2 and 3

Mathematics Standards Tests (see attachment appendix D and E). These tests are

California Standards Tests administered as part of the Standardized Testing and

Reporting (STAR) program under policies set by the State Board of Education. The CST

assessments coincided with the content standards and requirements for the accepted level

for the minimal risk to participating children or instructors. The second and third grade

CST mathematics aligned assessment pretest and posttest, MDM, and conventional math

instruction were similar to daily academic classroom activities.

The possibility that students may experience discomfort at not knowing the

answers on the pretest/posttest questions were considered. To assure that the risks

involved were minimized, the students were encouraged to do their best when answering

math combination questions. However, when they came across a combination that they

did not recognize, they were instructed to skip the question and move on to the next one.

The utmost ethical standards were maintained to protect the children’s identities as the

leading participants in the study.

To ensure that the second category was integrated, a letter giving details about

the research and its significance was mailed to the parents of each student involved in the
 80

study. Attachments enclosed with the letter were as follows: a parent informed consent

form (Appendix B), a guardian/researcher commitment agreement (Appendix C), and a

student assent form (Appendix D). The letter carried out two purposes: (a) informed the

subject that he/she was chosen to participate in the study and (b) provided a way to

explicate the pertinent informed consent required by NCU. Collected consent and assent

forms were in safekeeping and put in a locked cabinet separated from other data.

The third category covers the right to privacy. Parents were notified that their

child’s identity would be handled with confidentiality. No private or recognizing

information was divulged to any individual or entity in any method at any occasion

without a written permission from the participant. Participation was the single decision of

the participant. Except for grade level, gender, and age, participants were not compelled

to furnish any identification, unless he or she chose to provide an e-mail address for the

stated request to obtain his or her posttest results.

When a student agreed to participate, he/she was free to terminate participation at

any time without any notification given to the researcher, penalties or harmful effects to

themselves. However, immediately after data have been recorded and processed, it could

not be removed until the conclusion of the study had been finalized unless the participant

had provided an identification number to the researcher in the form of an email address

during the involvement procedure. The same student identification numbers that were

used by the school were utilized in the study to protect students’ identities.

The last category encompasses honesty with professional colleagues. Prior to

launching the study, a series of procedures took place. The researcher contacted the

principal of the targeted school in person and presented a letter to obtain permission to
 81

conduct the investigation within the school campus. The formal letter of approval was

submitted to the Northcentral University (NCU) Review Board (IRB), together with an

application to carry out the research study. An approval was acquired in terms of

maintaining ethical benchmarks throughout the research procedure comprising, but not

restricted to, the compilation, assessment, and documentation of data as well as the

treatment of participants. The participant recruitment began once approval from the

participating educational institution and the NCU IRB was received.

The research data were analyzed in total honesty utilizing SPSS 20. Data

underwriting specific conclusions were genuine and not fabricated. All data collected

during the experiment such as pretest and posttest scores were secured in a separate

locked cabinet. All data were downloaded to a safeguarded file on the personal, private

laptop of the researcher. The researcher was the only one who had access to the data.

The researcher was the only one who had access to the data. All electronic information

related to the study was saved in the investigator’s private laptop computer under a

password security. This considerably deterred access to the data by anyone except the

researcher.

Summary

The research design and methodology used in this study were intended to

ascertain the effectiveness of the Mad Dog Math program in second and third grade

levels at GVCS. The above section encompassed the research method and design. In

addition, student demographics and selection, research instrumentation, data collection,

processing, and data analysis methods are presented. The quantitative data gathered from
 82

the pretest and posttest represented the means through which the topic was investigated

and documented.

An operational definition of variables, measurement, limitations, and ethical

assurances were also discussed. Using G*Power 3.1.2 and SPSS 20.0 Windows software

for statistical analyses were utilized for the research measurement method. The

quantitative data were disaggregated and the two hypotheses in the study were tested

utilizing ANCOVA. Data was checked for normality and logarithmic transformation was

carried out on any set of data that was skewed so that only conventionally distributed data

were analyzed. To date, the current research regarding the use of CAI in mathematics in

elementary school indicates that educators who utilize CAI as a supplement to

conventional math instruction in their classroom procedures noticed progressive student

advancement (Ash, 2005).

 83

Chapter 4: Findings

The purpose of this quantitative quasi-experimental study was to determine the

effectiveness of a specific CAI supplemental math program, Mad Dog Math, on students’

math achievement as compared to students using only conventional teaching methods

utilized at a local elementary school located in Southern California. The treatment of

Mad Dog Math and gender were considered the independent variables. While the

posttest scores served as the dependent variable, the pretest scores served as the

covariate. The possible connection between the variables was examined quantitatively

through the use of a pretest and posttest.

This chapter provides the outcomes of the study. The participant demographics

are described first followed by an indication of the statistical method utilized. The

statistical overview is followed by the statistical outcomes categorized into two sections,

one for each of the two research questions. The statistical outcomes are followed by an

assessment of findings and a chapter summary.

Results

Sample descriptive statistics. Participants were recruited from a K-8 elementary

school in Southern California. The January 2012 student enrollment data specified that

300 students were present in the school. The student population was diverse. Second

and third grade students totaled 81, or approximately 27% of the student population. At

the time of this study, 17 regular classroom educators worked in the school, with teaching

responsibilities varying from kindergarten through eighth grade (Gardena Valley

Christian School, 2012).

 84

A priori analysis was calculated for the F test ANCOVA with fixed effects, main

effects, and interaction. The alpha for these tests was set for .05. To attain power of .80

and a large effect size (f = .40), for a 2 x 2 ANCOVA, an overall sample size of 52 was

needed to identify an effect. However, a sample size of 128 was required when the

power analysis was calculated with a medium size effect (f =.25). Regrettably, due to the

limited enrollment that existed in many private schools, the researcher was not able to

obtain 128 students. Consequently, assigning the power analysis for medium effect size,

the 81students secured as participants potentially caused the study to be underpowered to

identify group differences. Using the sensitivity analysis, the researcher determined the

effect size (0.32) was needed to achieve a 0.81 power with the given parameters.

To ensure that no inconsistencies existed in the data, which might affect the

outcomes, data were examined using various testing, such as the descriptive statistics

displayed in Table 1. The descriptive statistics in Table 1 indicate 81 participating

students with 42 students in the control group without the help of MDM as a supplement

and 39 students in the experimental group with the help of MDM as a supplement. All

students participated in the CST pretest and posttest assessment. As clearly shown in

Table 1, the mean and standard deviation scores are presented and will be discussed later

in this chapter in details.

 85

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics of Pretest and Posttest Scores

Mad Dog Math Statistic Std. error

Pretest Score Control Mean 17.55 1.049

5% Trimmed Mean 17.49
Std. Deviation 6.801
Skewness .190 .365
Kurtosis .067 .717

Experimental Mean 14.21 1.119

5% Trimmed Mean 13.98
Std. Deviation 6.989
Skewness .493 .378
Kurtosis -.326 .741

Posttest Score
Control Mean 23.95 1.320
5% trimmed mean 23.78
Std. deviation 8.554
Skewness .370 .365
Kurtosis -.483 .717

Experimental Mean 29.08 1.560

5% Trimmed Mean 29.34
Std. Deviation 9.742
Skewness -.181 .378
Kurtosis -.878 .741
_________________________________________________________________________

Prior to analysis, the data were examined through a variety of tests, such as

descriptive statistics for skewness and kurtosis to ensure no discrepancies existed in the

data which might influence the results. There were no discrepancies found that would

unjustifiably affect the outcomes. Table 2 demonstrates the descriptive statistics for the

experimental and control groups of both second and third grades. If skewness and

kurtosis values range from -1 to +1, the assumption of normal distribution is not violated

(George & Mallery, 2009). In Table 2, the skewness and kurtosis values of the dependent

variables were .147 and -.869 (within the range from -1 to +1), the normal distribution of

the variable was supported.

 86

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics for Experimental and Control Groups

Skewness Kurtosis
Statistic Std. error Statistic Std. error
Posttest Score .147 .267 -.869 .529

Data were examined prior to conducting the main analyses to make certain that

the statistical assumptions were sensible. By acquiring histograms, data were screened

for the normality assumption. Information from each histogram reports included the

mean, standard deviation, skewness, kurtosis, and number. Histograms for the control

and experimental groups were acquired for the pretest and posttest scores on the CST

aligned assessment. For an average normal distribution, the data distribution should

roughly take the shape of a bell curve. Thus, the normality assumption was not violated.

Figure 1. Control group mathematics pretest score distribution histogram.

 87

As demonstrated in Figure 1, the distribution of the data displays approximate

normality of the pretest score for the control group. The information shown above

includes the following: mean = 17.55, standard deviation = 6.801, N = 42. The normality

assumption was not violated.

Figure 2. Experimental group mathematics pretest score distribution histogram.

As illustrated in Figure 2, the distribution of the data shows approximate

normality of the pretest score for the experimental group. The information given above

includes the following: mean = 14.21, standard deviation = 6.989, N = 39. The normality

assumption was not violated.

 88

Figure 3. Control group mathematics posttest score distribution histogram.

As displayed in Figure 3, the distribution of the data illustrates approximate

normality of the posttest score for the control group. The information provided above

includes the following: mean = 23.95, standard deviation = 8.554, N = 42. The normality

assumption was not violated.

Figure 4. Experimental group mathematics posttest score distribution histogram.

As shown in Figure 4, the distribution of the data reveals approximate normality

of the posttest score for the experimental group. The information presented above
 89

includes the following: mean = 23.95, standard deviation = 8.554, N = 39. The normality

assumption was not violated.

Secondly, the data were examined for data normality by securing the Q-Q plots

for the pretest and posttest of both the control and experimental groups as presented in

Figures 5-8. The Q-Q Plots are displayed as follows: pretest for control group, pretest for

experimental group, posttest for control group, and posttest for experimental group. The

dots did not reveal significant deviation from the straight line. Therefore the Q-Q plots

corroborate that the scores were normally distributed.

Figure 5. Normal Q-Q Plot of control group pretest.

The Q-Q Plot shown above represents the pretest scores for the control group.

The dots did not disclose significant deviation from the straight line. Thus, the Q-Q Plot

substantiates that the scores were normally distributed.

 90

Figure 6. Normal Q-Q Plot of experimental group pretest.

The Q-Q Plot illustrated above shows the pretest scores for the experimental

group. The dots did not reveal significant deviation from the straight line. Therefore, the

Q-Q Plot validates that the scores were normally distributed.

Figure 7. Normal Q-Q Plot of control group posttest.

The Q-Q Plot shown above reveals the posttest scores for the control group. The

dots did not depict significant deviation from the straight line. Hence, the Q-Q Plot

verifies that the scores were normally distributed.

 91

Figure 8. Normal Q-Q Plot of experimental group posttest.

The Q-Q Plot illustrated above demonstrates the posttest scores for the

experimental group. The dots did not show significant deviation from the straight line.

Thus, the Q-Q Plot authenticates that the scores were normally distributed.

Table 3 displays the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests of posttest

score variable of the study. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests were used

as the numerical means of assessing normality. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-

Wilk test were used to check the normality of the dependent variable of this study. The

results of the tests showed that the observed significance level was greater than .05 (p>

.05). The null hypothesis that the dependent variable was normally distributed could not

be rejected. The statistical tests showed that the assumption of normal distribution of

posttest score (dependent) variable of this study was not violated.

 92

Table 3

Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk Normality Tests of Posttest Score

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Shapiro-Wilk
Variable
Statistic Df Sig. Statistic df Sig.
Posttest score .085 81 .200 .973 81 .089

Q1. After accounting for the pretest score, is there a significant difference on the

mean posttest score between students who were offered the MDM software supplement

program and those who were not?

The hypotheses for this question were:

H10. There is no significant difference on the posttest scores between the students

who receive mathematics instruction using conventional math and MDM as a supplement

and students who receive conventional math instruction without the MDM supplement

when using pretest scores as a covariate.

H1a. There is a significant difference on the posttest scores between the students

who receive mathematics instruction using conventional math and MDM as a supplement

and students who receive conventional math instruction without the MDM supplement

when using pretest scores as a covariate.

Table 4 displays the results of the Levene’s test of equality of error variances.

The Levene’s equality test was used to check the assumption of equality of variance.

Since the significance value (.20) was greater than .05, the variances were not equal and

the assumption of equality of variance was not violated.

 93

Table 4

The Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances

F df1 df2 Sig.

1.598 3 77 .197

The results of the ANCOVA are given in Table 5. The covariate (pretest score)

was measured before the experiment began, so the treatment did not affect the covariate.

After accounting for pretest scores, there was a significant difference between the control

and experimental groups on posttest scores, F(1, 27) = 14.17, p < .0005 with a low effect

size, partial eta squared = .15. The null hypothesis that there is no significant difference

in the posttest scores between the students who receive mathematics instruction using

conventional math and MDM as a supplement and students who receive conventional

math instruction without the MDM supplement when using pretest scores as a covariate

was rejected. After accounting for the pretest score, there is a significant difference in

the mean posttest score between students who were offered the MDM software

supplement program and those who were not.

Table 5

Test of Between Subjects

Source Type III sum of

squares Df Mean square F Sig. Partial eta squared
Corrected model 1842.53a 2 921.26 13.57 .000 .26
Intercept 3689.39 1 3689.33 54.35 .000 .41
Pretest score 1311.47 1 1311.47 19.32 .000 .20
MDM 961.65 1 961.65 14.17 .000 .15
Error 5295.20 78 67.89
Total 63676.00 81
Corrected total 7137.73 80

Note: a. R Squared = .258 (Adjusted R Squared = .239)

 94

The pretest and posttest results of the control group and experimental groups are

presented in Figures 9 and 10.

Figure 9. G Graph Mean pretest scores of control and experimental groups.

The bar graphs represented by Figure 9 displays the mean pretest scores of the

control and experimental groups. The mean pretest score of the control group =17.55.

The mean pretest score of the experimental group = 14.21.

Figure 10. G Graph Mean posttest scores of control and experimental groups.
 95

The bar graphs represented by Figure 10 displays the mean posttest scores of the

control and experimental groups. The mean posttest score of the control group = 23.95.

The mean posttest score of the experimental group = 29.08.

The students from the control group completed the pretest with a mean pretest

score of 17.55 or 35.10 %. After 10 weeks of curriculum based, regular mathematics

instruction, the control group had a mean posttest score of 23.95 or 47.90%. This is a

positive difference of 6.4 or 12.80%. The outcomes indicate a significant change over

time after 10 weeks of curriculum based, regular mathematics instruction. The students

from the experimental group completed the pretest with the mean pretest score of 14.21

or 28.42% and a mean posttest score of 29.08 or 58.16%. This is a positive difference of

14.87 or 29.74%. Based on the results displayed on Table 5 and Figures 9 and 10,

enough evidence existed to reject the null hypothesis in which it was assumed that

difference in mathematics achievement existed between the experimental and control

groups as measured by the CST aligned assessment.

Q2. Is there an interaction between gender (male or female) and treatment (MDM

supplement versus no MDM supplement) when evaluating posttest scores when pretest

scores are used as a covariate?

The above question addressed whether the instruction influenced males and

females differently as specified in the hypotheses reiterated below. To test the statistical

hypothesis (H0), a 2 X 2 ANCOVA was utilized. With regards to H1, added to the

ANCOVA model were two levels of instruction (Experimental and Control) with two

levels of gender (Males and Females).

 96

H20. There is no significant interaction between gender (male versus female) and

treatment (MDM supplement versus no MDM supplement) when evaluating posttest

scores when pretest scores are used as a covariate.

H2a. There is a significant interaction between gender (male versus female) and

treatment (MDM supplement versus no MDM supplement) when evaluating posttest

scores when pretest scores are used as a covariate?

Table 6 demonstrates the posttest means for the control and experimental groups.

The gender variable provided an additional source of variation to the model. The central

emphasis of H2 was the possible group by the gender interaction.

Table 6

Descriptive Statistics: MDM Gender - Dependent Variable: Posttest Score

MDM Gender Mean Std. error 95% Confidence Interval

Lower bound Upper bound
Control Female 20.811a 1.851 17.126 24.497
Male 24.939a 1.735 21.483 28.395
Note: a covariates appearing in the model were evaluated at the following values Pretest Scores = 15.94.

After accounting for pretest scores, there was no significant interaction effect of

MDM and gender, F(1,76) = 4.14, p = .06, with a low effect size (partial eta squared =

.001). The main effect of MDM and posttest score was significant, F(1,76) = 16.15, p =

.0005, with an effect size of .17. The effect of gender and posttest score was also

significant, F(1,76) = 4.04, p = .27 with a low effect size (partial eta squared = .05).

These results suggest that male and female did not respond differently to the treatment.

The null hypothesis that there is no significant interaction between gender (male versus

female) and treatment (MDM supplement versus no MDM supplement) when evaluating
 97

posttest scores and when pretest scores are used as a covariate was not rejected. There

was no interaction between gender (male or female) and treatment (MDM supplement

versus no MDM supplement) when evaluating posttest scores when pretest scores are

used as a covariate.

Evaluation of Findings

The theory of mastery learning posits that mastery is attainable for pragmatically

every learner, on the stipulation that a suitable learning atmosphere in the apportioned

time was arranged and that the superiority of instruction was maintained at an

outstanding level (Cooperman, 2011; Furner & Gonzalez-DeHass, 2011; Lau & Nie,

2008; Linnenbrink, 2005; Suppes and Zanotti, 1996). Specification for improvement,

developmental evaluation, and constructive feedback should have been assimilated in this

quality instruction (Bloom, 1981). Active learning theory was another philosophy that

this research has adopted. Active learning was to improve student learning and

accomplishment (Cooperstein & Kocevar-Weidinger, 2004; Maher & Tienken, 2008).

Therefore, based upon other studies and recommendations of other researchers (Berger,

Mary, Shaw, & Sosa, 2011; Bottge, Grant, Rueda, & Stephens, 2010; Du Paul &

Weyandt, 2006; Schoppek & Tullis, 2010; Strange, 2007), it was reasoned that there may

be a relationship between mastery learning, active learning, and improving mathematical

achievement.

Based on the reported statistical data, students receiving conventional

mathematical instruction supplemented with Mad Dog Math, a CAI software program,

exhibited significant gains compared to the control group. This outcome revealed that

conventional mathematical instruction accompanied with a CAI was a successful and

 98

proficient approach of intervention for second and third grade mathematics learners. It

would be projected, based on Suppes and Zanotti’s theory of mastery learning for

mathematics (as cited in Pearson Digital Learning, 2005), that conventional instruction in

mathematics complemented with CAI would steer learners to advanced levels of

mathematics achievement. The results corroborated prior research works that ascertained

CAI had a constructive influence on student achievement in mathematics (Bekir Celen,

2009; Birch & Sankey, 2008; Hung-Pin Shih, 2008; Neil & Matthews, 2009; Smith,

2009).

To examine hypothesis 2, as to determine whether males and females responded

differently to math instruction when taught using conventional instruction with or without

the supplement of a CAI program was investigated. The outcome of the ANCOVA

revealed no significant gender difference in the influence of CAI on mathematical

achievement for students. This result on the study of gender difference corresponds with

the outcomes of Lewis (2010) and Spence (2007), based on their evaluation of studies on

gender and CAI. However, a research performed by Spradlin and Ackerman (2009),

discovered that males were surpassed by females in both conventional instruction and

conventional instruction accompanied with CAI. Therefore, it may be ascertained that

the employment of CAI improved the performance of both male and female learners.

There is a probability that the low achieved power of .80 provided by the medium effect

size of the 81participants represented the research underpowered to expose the gender

effect.

Comparable to Neil and Matthews (2009) and Smith (2009), as well as the

theories of mastery and active learning (Cooperman, 2011; Furner & Gonzalez-DeHass,
 99

2011), the result of this research denotes the concept that there is a relationship between

the use of conventional math instruction supplemented with the CAI and improved

mathematical achievement for students. This study offers additional support to the

recommendation of Fuchs, et al (2006) that the instructors oversee students so that

appropriate practice and treatment of the software is ensured. The outcome also

reinforces the postulation that computer interactive learning provides an exceptional

strategy of communicating instructions that can be customized to support diverse learning

techniques (Mitchell, Chen, & Macredie 2005). This information could possibly

influence increased technology integration in the classroom to enhance mathematical

achievement for learners. Hence, the suggestion that employing a CAI program as a

supplement to conventional mathematical instruction allows learners to answer

mathematical problems through trial-and-error instead of utilizing only distinctive and

defined methods is appropriate. This approach may stimulate learners to modify their

mathematical skills to tangible functions.

Summary

The outcomes of this study rejected the null hypothesis stating that there is no

significant difference in the posttest scores between the students who receive

mathematics instruction using conventional math and MDM as a supplement and students

who receive conventional math instruction without the MDM supplement when using

pretest scores as a covariate. In addition, after accounting for the pretest score, the results

indicated that there is a significant difference in the mean posttest score between students

who were offered the MDM software supplement program and those who were not. The

results of this research are consistent with mastery and active learning theories. The Mad
 100

Dog Math CAI program resulted in higher posttest scores following a 10-week period

working only 10 minutes daily. In formulating decisions on how to successfully assist

learners who struggle in mathematics, it is imperative for educators, school

administrators, and school districts to have information regarding effective interventions.

 101

Chapter 5: Implications, Recommendations, and Conclusions

The fact that American learners constantly and steadily score poorly in

mathematics during global-wide assessment prompts intense alarm (President’s Council

of Advisor on Science & Technology, 2010; National Center for Education Statistics,

2007). The problem this study endeavored to address originated from the national

yearning to increase scholastic achievement (Algozzine, Chuang, & Violette, 2010;

Ehrich, Kimber, Milwater, & Cranston, 2011; Lee, 2010; Schussler, Stooksberry, &

Bercaw, 2010). A continuous attempt has been in place to improve scholastic

achievement in mathematics in a local elementary school located in Southern California.

Therefore, the purpose of this quantitative, quasi-experimental study was to determine the

effectiveness of a specific CAI supplemental math program, Mad Dog Math, on students’

math achievement as compared to students using only conventional teaching methods.

Additionally, this study investigated the differences in scholastic achievement of students

in mathematics utilizing a CAI program with male and female gender.

To provide an impartial assessment of the control and experimental groups, self-

contained classrooms were selected. The advancement of the two groups was evaluated

after 10 weeks. The progress of the two groups was compared to ascertain whether a

significant difference in mathematics achievement ensued. The limitations of this

investigation have been submitted as to the manifestation of other components, both

internal and external, that would likely influence the effectiveness of MDM on scholastic

math achievement of learners. The ultimate drawback of this study comprised a sample

size that was acceptable for identifying larger medium effects only. However, the

research was not considerable in disclosing medium size effects due to the restricted
 102

number of participants. More notable and explicit outcomes, such as relationships

between groups and ethnicity, can be ascertained if the population size is greater thus

causing a higher power.

The utilization of a convenience population sample constraints the

generalizability of the results of the research. The participation of learners from a single

private school would not be representative of the sizeable population of students in the

public school or in the district or the state. Unbeknownst to the researcher, both groups

perhaps were diverged in features therefore influencing the results because the

participants were not arbitrarily dispersed to condition. There was a possibility that

detected differences in the posttest scores were due to the prior differences that existed in

the group. Furthermore, the acquired outcomes may manifest distinctive traits from the

participants that may not be embraced by students from other schools.

The quasi-experimental disposition of the study did not permit the researcher to

ascertain cause and effect relationships which is another limitation of this research. Since

the participants in the control condition were conscious that they were not getting special

consideration, it may have diminished their enthusiasm to achieve. This could inflate the

posttest score difference between the two groups. Moreover, participants in the

experimental group may have sensed that they were receiving exclusive attention and

expected to score higher than those in the control group. With this mentality, learners in

the experimental group perhaps performed better, thus scored higher during the posttest

evaluation. The absence of diverse demographics in the selected school eliminated the

opportunity for the researcher to evaluate other important variables such as race, attention

span, behavioral difficulties, and socio-economic status of the participants. There was a
 103

possibility that the research was declared underpowered to reveal effects of gender due to

the limited sample size of 81 student participants.

Throughout the entire research, ethics were asserted particularly in terms of issues

for confidentiality and privacy. To guarantee that the rights of all the participants were

secured, a formal request to perform the investigation and an approval from the NCU

IRB were obtained. Informed consent and assent were acquired from every participant

and their parents or guardians. A cover letter with a complete account of the researcher’s

identity, a detailed description of the study, the values and gains to the education system,

and how to receive the outcomes of the research was provided. Information regarding the

participant’s name, age, and grade level were the only personal information requested

from the learners. Consequently, participants who were willing to receive their pretest

and posttest scores were asked to provide their email address as well.

The quantitative research questions and corresponding hypotheses will be

reviewed and discussed within the implication section. Additionally, the inclusion of

limitations that became obvious during the research process, specifically in the view of

how they possibly influenced the explanation of the outcomes, will also be delineated.

Recommendations concerning utilization of the information, facts, and awareness gained

as well as suggestions involving future studies will be defined.

Implications

The following were the research questions examined in the study:

Q1. After accounting for the pretest score, is there a significant difference in the

mean posttest score between students who were offered the MDM software supplement

program and those who were not?

 104

H10. There is no significant difference in the posttest scores between the students

who receive mathematics instruction using conventional math and MDM as a supplement

and students who receive conventional math instruction without the MDM supplement

when using pretest scores as a covariate.

H1a. There is a significant difference in the posttest scores between the students

who receive mathematics instruction using conventional math and MDM as a supplement

and students who receive conventional math instruction without the MDM supplement

when using pretest scores as a covariate.

This specific question was addressed through the data collected from the pretest

and posttest. Based upon the ANCOVA between group analysis of F(1, 27) =14.15, p <

.0005 with a low effect size, partial eta squared = .15, the null hypothesis was rejected.

However, the main effect of MDM and posttest score was significant, F(1, 76) = 16.15, p

= .0005, with an effect size of .17. The covariate (pretest score) was measured before the

experiment began, so the treatment did not affect the covariate. Therefore, after

accounting for the pretest score, there was a significant difference in the mean posttest

score between students who were offered the MDM software supplement program and

those who were not.

Q2. Is there an interaction between gender (male or female) and treatment (MDM

supplement versus no MDM supplement) when evaluating posttest scores when pretest

scores are used as a covariate?

H20. There is no significant interaction between gender (male versus female) and

treatment (MDM supplement versus no MDM supplement) when evaluating posttest

scores when pretest scores are used as a covariate.

 105

H2a. There is a significant interaction between gender (male versus female) and

treatment (MDM supplement versus no MDM supplement) when evaluating posttest

scores when pretest scores are used as a covariate.

The second question was also addressed through the data gathered from the

pretest and posttest. Based upon a 2 X 2 ANCOVA between group analysis of F(1,76) =

4.14, p = .06, with a low effect size (partial eta squared = .001), there was no significant

interaction effect of MDM and gender after accounting for pretest scores. These results

suggested that male and female did not respond differently to the treatment. The null

hypothesis that there is no significant interaction between gender (male versus female)

and treatment (MDM supplement versus no MDM supplement) when evaluating posttest

scores when pretest scores are used as a covariate was not rejected. There was no

interaction between gender (male or female) and treatment (MDM supplement versus no

MDM supplement) when evaluating posttest scores when pretest scores were used as a

covariate.

The primary reason for using ANCOVA is to lessen the error variance in random

allocation of subjects. However, since this study used nonrandomized design, the

principal purpose of ANCOVA was to adjust the posttest means for differences among

the control and experimental groups on the pretest (Dimitrov & Rumrill, 2003). It is

imperative to assert that the intervention can be critically influenced with intact groups

when pretest is not reliable. Another possible setback with ANCOVA includes the

differential growth of the nonrandomized subjects on the dependent variable. Systematic

bias such as pretest differences between the control and experimental groups can alter the

analyses of posttest differences.

 106

Overall, the outcomes fit the purpose of the study and yielded some information

to attend to the identified problem of the learners’ deficient mathematical skills.

Numerous studies have been previously reported that significant improvement in math

skills were associated with the use of CAI and other computer-based intervention as a

supplement to conventional math instruction (Burns, Kanive, & DeGrande, 2012;

Springer, Pugalee, & Algozzine, 2007; Ysseldyke & McLeod, 2007). Others considered

the implications that confirm the use of new technologies as an assistive technological

tool that can be employed successfully to enhance learning (Nordess & Haverkost, 2011;

Fuchs, et al., 2006).

The significance of this specific research resulted in enlightenment and awareness

that while reports revealed the shortcomings of mathematics in the United States when

measured against other developed countries (Gonzales, Williams, Jocelyn, Roey,

Kastberg, & Brenwald, 2007; National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008), there are

studies that have proven to be efficient and effective in improving students’ math

achievement skills. In a research done by Huang, Liu, and Chang (2012), the findings

revealed that CAI functioned as an enhancement tool that assisted educators in improving

the problem-solving skills of struggling students as well as used for remedial instruction.

This study complemented their findings by indicating that the use of computer-assisted

instruction can aid proficiently and successfully as a device for teachers engaged in

improving learners’ skills in mathematics achievement.

Furthermore, most recent studies such as those conducted by Lewis (2010) and

Hyde, et al. (2008) indicated that the use of CAI employment had an equal influence on

both genders. Their findings disclosed that gender gap in mathematics were not
 107

significant provoking queries concerning whether gender gap in mathematics

achievement still exist today. This research supported their findings when the outcomes

for the CAI intervention group revealed comparable posttest scores for both genders.

This research may have implications at a district level. When offering teacher in-

services and guidance to parents, computer-assisted instruction can be incorporated as a

supplement to the curriculum based on outcomes. Additionally, findings can be utilized

by the policymakers and school officials as a catalyst for the continuing interchange of

information to increase statewide math program and provide resources for the use of CAI.

By increasing the awareness and providing knowledge to fill the void that may help

enhance teaching and learning mathematics, the outcomes of this study may contribute to

the body of literature involving this topic.

Recommendations

The data provided by the assessment points to a number of realistic and functional

recommendations to assist learners, educators, stakeholders, and parents. Instructors are

endorsed to utilize an assortment of instructional approaches with students (Joyce, Weil,

& Calhoun, 2009). The section contains the recommendations for the practical

presentation of findings to the educational system as well as suggestion for future studies.

The conducted literature review for this research specified that computer assisted

instruction was often examined for its efficacy in assisting students in improving math

skills. The findings of previous studies including this dissertation indicated that the

integration of CAI in the classroom is effective in enhancing students’ mathematical

achievements. This is possibly due to the numerous practice opportunities offered by the

technology program. Additionally, as reinforced through the findings of this dissertation,

 108

the utilization of CAI is appropriate to math instruction perhaps due to some of its

positive features such as timely feedback, self–pace effort, and availability. Due to its

findings, CAI may be a candidate for consideration to be integrated in a variety of content

areas.

The following recommendations with some modifications and additions are

suggested for future studies on computer-assisted instruction intervention. The first

recommendation is to increase the sample population and stratification of grade levels.

Enlarging the sample size by including other elementary grade levels may adjust the

generalizability of the outcomes. As numerous school district representatives are

exploring methods to improve scholastic achievement on standardized tests, a research

into NCLB subgroups may also reveal significant information.

The second recommendation is to assess the effects of CAI with students with

learning disabilities. By the time learners completed their high school education,

between 5 - 10% of students will be identified with some type of learning disability

(Bailey, Geary, & Hoard, 2009). Basic elementary mathematical skills is one of the most

compelling predictors of future academic success in general (Claessens, Dowsett,

Duncan, Klebanov & Magnuson, 2007).

The third recommendation is to incorporate the use of qualitative data collection

with quantitative method. Data gathered from a mixed method study works to remove

bias and misrepresentation by strict adherence to solitary conventional concept (Pinto,

2010). Utilizing interviews from individual learners and instructors concerning

technology integration in improving mathematics achievement scores can be used as a

support mechanism for the quantitative data.

 109

Lastly, the fourth recommendation is to increase the duration of the intervention.

Based on literature reviewed, about 50% of the experiments transpired with the duration

longer than two academic quarters or one semester. The length of time for the treatment

involved in a study could influence the findings, even though in research, no absolute

appropriate study duration exists. The duration of a study should be designated based

upon multiple considerations such as population, treatment, variables, and methods

(Meline, 2006).

Conclusions

The focus, purpose, and goal of the research was to determine the effectiveness

of a specific CAI supplemental math program, Mad Dog Math (MDM), on students’

math achievement as compared to students using only conventional teaching methods

utilized at a local elementary school located in Southern California. Additionally, this

study examined for disparities in mathematical achievement utilizing CAI with gender.

This final section includes the following: (a) implications, (b) recommendations, and (c)

conclusions.

The outcome of the qualitative research showed evidence that the Mad Dog Math

treatment revealed significant difference in mathematical achievement on the CST

aligned assessment. Inclusively, the findings matched the objective of the research and

generated some information to focus on the pinpointed struggle of the students’

unsatisfactory mathematical skills. The outcome of the ANCOVA revealed no

significant gender difference in the influence of CAI on mathematical achievement for

students. The result of this research corresponded with the study outcomes of Lewis
 110

(2010) and Spence (2007) demonstrating that the use of CAI as a supplement to

conventional classroom instruction has an equivalent influence on both genders.

In the current study, the findings indicated that the use of computer-assisted

instruction such as MDM has a significant effect on second and third grade students’

mathematics achievement. By and large, the findings matched the objective of the

research and generated some evidence to focus on the characterized dilemma of the

students’ inadequate mathematical skills. Additionally, based on the literature reviewed

and the result of the present study, the integration of technology in instructing

mathematics using the conventional classroom instruction was beneficial in increasing

scholastic achievement in mathematics.

Technology integration in classroom curriculum continues to be one of the

objectives in many school districts despite the current decline of the economy. For future

studies, several areas may be taken into consideration based on the outcome of the

present quantitative quasi-experimental research. Several practical and reasonable

suggestions to support learners, educators, administrators, and parents are derived from

the sufficient data supplied by the evaluation.

The following were the recommendations for future study of CAI: (a) to increase

generalizability of the outcomes, future studies can include increasing the number of

population and inviting other grade levels to participate, (b) to examine the effects of CAI

with students with learning disabilities, (c) to offer progressive implementation, future

studies such as teacher-student perceptions and effectiveness can include qualitative

elements to their research, and (d) increase the duration of the treatment.
 111

References

Adonri, O. & Gittman, E. (1998). Effect of computer assisted instruction on students'

achievement in global studies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Northeastern Educational Research Association, Ellenville, NY.

Aeby, V. G., Powell, J. V., & Carpenter-Aeby, T. (2000). Effects of Success Maker
computerized curriculum on the behavior of disruptive students. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 28(4), 335–347.

Alessi, S., Trollip, M., & Stanley, R. (2001). Multimedia for learning: Methods and
development. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Algozzine, B., Chuang, W., & Violette, A. (2010). Reexamining the relationship between
academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior
Intervention, 13(1), 3-6.

Almeqdadi, F. (2007). The effect of using the geometer’s sketchpad (GSP) on Jordanian
students’ understanding of geometrical concepts. International Journal for
Mathematics and Learning. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Technology in Mathematics Education.

Amunga, K. & Musasia, A. (2011). Disparities in mathematics achievement among

secondary schools: The case of Kenya. Problems of Education in the 21st Century,
28(1), 8-18.

Anderson, J. R., Fincham, J. M., & Douglass, S. (1997).The role of examples and rules in
the acquisition of a cognitive skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(1), 932–945.

Armington, T. C. (2003). Best practices in developmental mathematics. Metuchen, NJ:

NADE Mathematics Special Professional Interest Network.

Arms, E. (2007). Gender equity in coeducational and single-sex environments. In S.

Klein (editor). Handbook for achieving equity through education (171-190).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ash, J. (2005). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on middle school mathematics

achievement. Retrieved from
http://orchardsoftware.com/docs/OrchardstudyAsh.pdf

Atkinson, R. (1968). Computerized instruction and the learning process. American

Psychologist, 23(1), 225-239.
 112

Aydin, E. (2005). The use of computers in mathematics in mathematics education: A

paradigm shift from “computer assisted instruction” towards “student
programming.” Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(2), 27-34.

Baker, R., Matulich, E., & Papp, R. (2007). Teach me in the way I learn: Education and
the internet generation. Journal of College Teaching & Learning, 4(4), 27-32.

Bakia, M., Yang, E., & Mitchell, K. (2008). National educational technology trends
study local level data summary. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation
and Policy Development, U.S. Department of Education.

Barrett, K.R., 2006). Gender and differences in online teaching styles, in Eileen M.
Trauth (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Gender and Information Technology, Hershey, PA:
Idea Group Reference.

Beal, C., Adams, N., & Cohen, P. (2010). Reading proficiency and mathematics problem
solving by high school English language learners. Urban Education, 45(1), 58-74.
Retrieved from http://uex.sagepub.com

Beck, J. (2005) Engagement tracing: Using response times to model student

disengagement. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Artificial
Intelligence in Education (AIED 2005), Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Becker, H. J. (2001). How are teachers using computers in instruction? Retrieved from
www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/FINDINGS/special3/

Beeland, W. D. (2002). Student engagement, visual learning and technology: Can

interactive whiteboards help? Action Research Exchange. Retrieved from
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/Artmanscrpt/vollnol/beeland_am.pdf

Bekir Celen, N. (2009). The effects of web based educational drills in competitive
atmosphere on motivation and learning. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences,
1(1) 1485-1490.
Bell, B., Kanar, A., & Kozlowski, S. (2008). Current issues and future directions in
simulation-based training in North America. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 19(1), 1416–1436.

Bender, D. G. (2007). Experiencing the effect of teaching and learning styles on skill
mastery. Journal of Nursing Education, 46(3), 147-148.

Bhana, D. (2005). “I’m the best in math. Boys rule, girls drool.” Masculinities,
mathematics, and primary schooling. Perspectives in Education, 23(1), 1-10.

Biesinger, K. & Crippen, K. (2008). The impact of an online remediation site on

performance related to high school mathematics proficiency. The Journal of
Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(1), 5-17.
 113

Birch, D., & Sankey, M. D. (2008). Drivers for and obstacles to the development of
interactive multimodal technology-mediated distance higher education courses.
International Journal of Education and Development Using ICT. 4. 1. Retrieved
from http://ijedict.dec.uwi.edu//viewarticle.php?id= 375&layout=html

Bligh, D. (2000). What’s the use of lectures. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery: Instruction and curriculum. Evaluation

Comment UCLA-CSIEP, 1(2), 1-12.

Bloom, B.S., Hasting, J. T., Madaus, G. (1971). Handbook on Formative and summative
evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw Hill.

Bottge, B., Grant, T., Stephens, A., & Rueda, E. (2010). Advancing the math skills of
middle school students in technology education classrooms, 94(2), 81-106.
Retrieved from http://sagepublications.com

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2003). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2000). A research based approach to developing a

computer assisted course for developmental students. In J. L. Higbee & P. L.
Dwinell (Eds.), The many faces of developmental education (59-72).
Warrensburg, MO: National Association for Developmental Education.

Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analysis of response-to-

intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented.
Retrieved from EBSCOHost database.

Burns, M. S., Griffin, P., & Snow, C. E. (1999). Starting out right: A guide to promoting
children's reading success. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Burns, M., Kanive, R., & DeGrande, M. (2010). Effect of a computer-delivered math fact
intervention as supplemental intervention for math in third and fourth grades.
Remedial and Special Education, 33(3), 184-191.

Burris, A. (2006). A brief history of mathematics education and the NCTM standards.
Retrieved from www.education.com

Buyukkoroglu, T., Cetin, N., Deniz, A., Duzce, S.A., Mahir, N., & Ureyen, M. (2006).
The effect of computers on teaching the limit concept. International Journal for
Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Retrieved from
http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/journal/buyukkoroglu.pdf

Caldwell, J. E. (2007). Clickers in the large classroom: Current research and best-practice
tips. CBE Life Sciences Education, 6(1), 9–20.
 114

California Department of Education. (2006). Addendum to the California standards tests

(CST) technical report. Retrieved from www.cde.ca.gov

California Department of Education. (2007). DataQuest [Query results]. Available

from http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest

California Department of Education. (2010). California standard released test questions.

Sacramento, CA: U.S. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg

Campuzano, L., Dynarski, M., Agodini, M., Rall, K. (2009). Effectiveness of reading and
mathematics software products: Findings from two student cohorts. Retrieved
from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20094041/pdf/20094041/pdf

Carroll, J. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(1), 723-733.

Cavanagh, S. (2008). Stereotype of mathematical inferiority still plagues girls. Education

Week, 2(l), 9.

Ceci, S. J. & Williams, W. M. (2010). Sex differences in math-intensive fields.

Psychological Science, 19(5), 275-279.

Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in

science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin,
135(1), 218–261.

Clark, J., and Fulton, R. (2003), Elementary mathematics performance-based assessment,

Retrieved from
www.cudenver.edu/NR/rdonlyres/evszdz3xg52qbadx7yeukhitqqtud7eudmg44nbf
zqor3vxsxf7ur5qaysibessgqj7pn5

Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning and teaching early math: The learning
trajectories approach. New York, NY: Routledge.

Codding, R. S., Chan-lannetta, L., Palmer, M., & Lukito, G. (2009). Examining a
classwide application of cover-copy-compare with and without goal setting to
enhance mathematics fluency. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(1), 173-185. doi:
10.1037/a0017192

Cooperman, Robert. (2011). Mastery learning in the adult classroom, 65(6), 52-57.
Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training and Development.

Cooperstein, S. & Kocevar-Weidinger, E. (2004). Beyond active learning: A

constructivist approach to learning. Reference Service Review, 32(2), 141-148.
 115

Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K. R., & Hadley, W. H. (2001). Cognitive tutors: From the
research classroom to all classrooms. In P. S. Goodman (Ed.), Technology
enhanced learning: Opportunities for change (pp. 235–263). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cormode, G., & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between Web 1.0 and Web
2.0. First Monday, 13(6). Retrieved from
http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2125/1972

Crooks, C., Harrison, C., Farrington-Flint, L., Tomas, C. & Underwood, J. (2010). The
impact of technology: Value-added classroom practice. Final report. United
Kingdom: British Educational Communication and Technology Agency.
Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1771/

Dalgaard, B., Lewis, & D., Boyer, C. (1984). Journal of Economic Education, 15(4),
309-323.

Dede, C. (2008). A seismic shift in epistemology. EDUCAUSE Review, pp.

80–81. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0837.pdf

DeGennaro, D. (2008). Learning designs: An analysis of youth-initiated technology use.

Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 41(1), 1–20.

DePaul, J. G., & Weyandt, L. L. (2006). School-based intervention for children with
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. London: Routledge.

Dimitrov, D. & Rumrill, P. (2003). Pretest and posttest design and measurement of
change. WORK: A journal of prevention, assessment, & rehabilitation, 20(2),
159-165.

Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., & Huston, A. C. (2007).
School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(1), 1428-
1446.

Dynarski, M. R., Agodini, S., Heaviside, T., Novak, N., Carey, L., & Campuzano, R.
(2007). “Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings
from the first student cohort.” Report to Congress. Publication NCEE 2007-4005.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, March 2007. Educational
Testing Service. End-of-Course Algebra Assessment Administrator’s Manual.

Enman, M., & Lupart, J. (2000). Talented female students’ resistance to science: An
exploratory study of post-secondary achievement motivation, persistence, and
epistemological characteristics. High Ability Studies, 11(1), 161-178.
 116

Fies, C. (2007). Research summary: Digital technologies in mathematics and science

education. Retrieved from
http://ww.nmsa.org/ResearchSummaries/DigitalTechnology/tabid/1486/Default.as
px

Flippo, R. F., & Caverly, D. C. (2008). Handbook of college reading and study strategy
research. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Frank, M., & Barzilai, A. (2006). Project-based technology: Instructional strategy for
developing technological literacy. Journal of Technology Education, 18(1), 39-53.

Freeman, J. (2003). Gender differences in gifted achievement in Britain and the U.S.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(1), 202-211.

Freeman, J. (2004). Cultural influences on gifted gender achievement. High Ability

Studies, 15(1), 7-23.

Fuchs, L., Fuchs, D., Hamlet, C., Powell, S., Capsize, A., & Seethaler, P. (2006). The
effects of computer-assisted instruction on number combination skill in at-risk
first graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(1), 467-475.

Funkhouser, C. (2002). The effects of computer augmented geometry instruction on

student performance and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in
Education, 35(2), 163-175.

Galbraith, P. (2006). Students, mathematics, and technology: Assessing the present –

challenging the future. International Journal of Mathematical Education in
Science & Technology, 37(3), 277.

Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.).
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Gallagher, A.M., & Kaufman, J.C. (2005). Gender differences in mathematics: An

integrative psychological approach. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.

Gardner, D. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for education reform. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Gardner, J., Morrison, H., & Jarman, R. (1993). The impact of high access to computers
on learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 9(1), 2-16.

Gayle, B. (2006). Classroom communication and instructional processes. London:

Routledge.
 117

Geary, D., Bailey, D., & Hoard, M. (2009). Predicting mathematical achievement and
mathematical learning disability with simple screening tool: The number sets test.
J. Psychoeduc Assess, 27(3), 265-279.

Geist, E. & King, M. (2008). Different, not better: Gender differences in mathematics
learning and achievement. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 35(1), 43-51.

Gersten R., Baker S., & Lloyd J. W. (2000) Designing high quality research in special
education: Group experimental design. The Journal of Special Education, 34(1),
2–28.
Ginther, D. K., & Kahn, S. (2006). Does science promote women? Evidence from
academia, 1973–2001. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w12691

Gonzales, P., Williams, T., Jocelyn, L., Roey, S., Kastberg, D., & Brenwald, S. (2007).
Highlights From TIMSS 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of U.S.
fourth- and eighth-grade students in an international context (NCES 2009-001
Revised). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education
Sciences. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Greeno, J. G., & Collins, A. (2008). Commentary on the final report of the national
mathematics advisory panel. Educational Researcher, 37(1), 618-623.

Halpern, D. F. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Halpern, D., Benbow, C., Geary, D., Gur, R., Hyde, J., & Gernsbacher, M. (2007). The
science of sex differences in science and mathematics. Association for
Psychological Science, 8(1), 1-52.

Hand, V. M. (2010). The co-construction of opposition in a low-track mathematics

classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 97-132.

Hannafin, R. D., Vermillion, J. R., Truxaw, M. P., & Liu, Y. (2008). Effects of spatial
ability and instructional program on geometry achievement. Journal of
Educational Research, 101(1), 148-156.

Hasselbring, T. S., Lott, A. C., & Zydney, J. M. (2005). Technology-supported math

instruction for students with disabilities Two decades of research and
development. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Hedges, L. V., Nowell, A. (1995). Sex differences in mental test scores, variability, and
numbers of high-scoring individuals. Science, 269(1), 41–45.

Helfand, D. (2006, January 30). A formula for failure in L.A. schools. Los Angeles Times,
pp. A1, A14-15.
 118

Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of
University Women.
Holley, D. & Dobson, C. (2008) Encouraging student engagement in a blended learning
environment: The use of contemporary learning spaces. Learning, Media and
Technology 33(2), 139–50.

Holmes, C. T., Brown, C. L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Promoting academic success for
all students. Academic Exchange Quarterly, 10(1), 141–147.

Horrigan, J. B. (2008). Home broadband adoption 2008. Washington, DC: Pew

Charitable Trusts. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_Broadband_2008.pdf

Huffaker, D. & Calvert, S. (2003). The new science of learning: Active learning
metacognition and transfer of knowledge, in e-learning applications. Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 29(3), 325-334.

Hung-Pin Shih (2008).Using a cognition-motivation-control view to assess the adoption

intention for web-based learning. Computers & Education, 25(1), 327-337.

Hwang, W., Chen, N., & Hsu, R. (2006). Development and evaluation of multimedia
whiteboard system for improving mathematical problem solving. Computers and
Education, 46(1), 105-121.

Hyde J. S., Fennema, E., Lamon, S. (1990) Gender differences in mathematics

performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 139–155.

Hyde, J. S., Lindberg, S. M., Linn, M. C., Ellis, A., & Williams, C. (2008). Gender
similarities characterize math performance. Science, 321(1), 494–495.

IGI Global. (2008). A brief history of computers, computing in education, and computing
in Philadelphia [Electronic version]. Hershey, PA: Author.

Institute of Education Sciences. (2009). Intervention report. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education.

International Society for Technology in Education. (2007). National educational

technology standards and performance indicators for students. Eugene, OR:
Author.

Irish, C. (2002). Using peg- and keyword mnemonics and computer-assisted instruction
to enhance basic multiplication performance in elementary students with learning
and cognitive disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 17(4), 29-40.
 119

Joyce, B. R., Weil, M., & Calhoun, E. (2009). Models of teaching. New Delhi,
India: PHI Learning Private Limited.

Kaput, J., Hegedus, S., & Lesh, R. (2007). Technology becoming infrastructural in
mathematics education. In R. Lesh, E. Hamilton, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations
for the future in mathematics education (pp. 173–192). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum

Kausar, T., Choudhry, B. N. & Gujjar, A. A. (2008). A comparative study to evaluate the
effectiveness of computer assisted instruction (CAI) versus classroom lecture
(RL) for computer science at ICS level [electronic version]. The Turkish Online
Journal of Educational Technology—TOJET, 7(4/2). Retrieved for
http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED503459.pdf

Ke, F. (2008). Computer games application within alternative classroom goal structures:
Cognitive, metacognitive, and affective evaluation. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 56(1), 539-556.

Keller, F. (1968). Good bye teacher. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1(1), 79-89.

Kiefer, A. & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2007). Implicit stereotypes and women’s math

performance: How implicit gender-math stereotypes influence women’s
susceptibility to stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
45(5), 825-832.

Kim, Y., Grabowski, B.L., & Song, H. (2003). Science teachers’ perspectives of web-
enhanced problem-based learning environment: A qualitative inquiry. Retrieved
from ERIC database.

Kimball, M. M. (1989). A new perspective on women's math achievement.

Psychological Bulletin, 105(1), 198–214.

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J. & Clark, R. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction
does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-
based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2),
74-86.

Kline, D. (2003). A brief history of American mathematics in the 20th century. Retrieved
from www.csun.edu~vcmth00/AHistory.html

Klopfer, E., Osterweil, S., Groff, J., & Haas, J. (2009). The Instructional power of games,
social networking, and simulations and how teachers can leverage them.
Retrieved from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0

Knight, J. K. & Wood, W. B. (2005). Teaching more by lecturing less. Cell Biology
Education, 4(1), 298–310.
 120

Kolb, A. & Kolb, D. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing the
experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 4(2), 193-212.

Kotoff, Julie. (2007). Mad dog math. Retrieved from www.maddogmath.com

Ku, H., Harter, C., Liu, P., Thompson, L., & Cheng, Y. (2007). The effect of individually
personalized computer-based instructional program on solving mathematics
problems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(1), 195-210.

Kula, A., Erdem M., (2005). The effect of educational computer games on the
development of basic arithmetical operation skills. Journal of Education , 29(1),
127-136.
Kulik, J. (2003). The effects of using instructional technology in elementary and
secondary schools: What controlled evaluation studies say. Arlington, Virginia:
SRI International.

Kulturel-Konak, S., D'Allegro, M., & Dickinson, S. (2011). Review of gender differences
in learning styles: Suggestions for STEM education. Contemporary Issues In
Education Research, 4(3), 9-18.

Laidlow, L. D. (2004). Gender differences in mathematics achievement: An analysis of

the 2003 Common Entrance Examination in the Commonwealth of Dominica. A
Master’s thesis presented to the University College of Education- Ohio.

Larreamendy-Joerns, J., Leinhardt, G., & Correador, J. (2005). Six online statistics
courses: Examination and review. American Statistician, 59(1), 240–251.

Larwin, K. & Larwin, D. (2011). A meta-analysis examining the impact of computer

assisted instruction on postsecondary statistics education: 40 years of research.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(3), 253-278.

Lau, S. & Nie, Y. (2008). Interplay between personal goals and classroom goal structures
in predicting student outcomes: A multilevel analysis of person-context
interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 15-29.

Leder, G. (2004). Gender differences among gifted students: Contemporary views. High
Ability Studies, 15(1), 103-108.

Lee, J. (2010). Tripartite growth trajectories of reading and math achievement: Tracking
national academic progress at primary, middle, and high school levels. American
Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 800-832.

Lesh, R., Hamilton, E, & Kaput, J. J. (2007). Foundations for the future in mathematics
education. London: Routledge.
 121

Lesh, R., Yoon, C., & Zawojewski, J. (2007). John Dewey revisited: Making
mathematics practical versus making practice mathematical. In R. A. Lesh, E.
Hamilton, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Foundations for the future in mathematics education
(pp. 315-348). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lewis, R. (2010). The effectiveness of CAI on student math achievement. (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from EBSCOHost database.

Liao, Y-K. C. (2007). The effects of computer assisted instruction on students'

achievement in Taiwan: A meta-analysis. Computers and Education, 48(2), 216-
233.

Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). The dilemma of performance approach goals: The use of

multiple goal contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97(2), 197-213.

Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after
35 years: Uncovering antecedents for math science expertise. Perspectives on
Psychological Science,1(1), 316–345.

Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Morelock, M. (2000). Gender differences in engineering
and the physical sciences among the gifted: An inorganic-organic distinction. In
K. Heller, F. Mönks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook
of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 633-648). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Lynch, J. (2006). Assessing effects of technology usage on mathematics learning.

Mathematics Education Research Journal, 18(1), 29-43.

Malone, T. W. (1980). What makes things fun to learn? A study of intrinsic and
motivating computer games. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGSMALL
symposium, Palo Alto, California.

Martindale, T., Cates, W. M., & Qian, Y. (2005). Analysis of recognized web based
educational resources. Computers in the Schools, 27(3/4), 110-117.

Martindale, T., Pearson, C., Curda, L. K., & Pilcher, J. (2005). Effects of an online
instructional application on reading and mathematics standardized test scores.
Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 37(1), 349-360.

Meece, J. L., Eccles-Parsons, J. (1982). Sex differences in math achievement: Toward a

model of academic choice. Psychological Bulletin, 91(1), 324–348.

Meline, T. (2006). Selecting studies for systematic review: Inclusion and exclusion
criteria. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 33(1),
21- 27.
 122

Mendicino, M., Razzaq, L., & Heffernan, N. (2009). A comparison of traditional

homework to computer-supported homework. Journal of Research on Technology
in Education, 41(3), 331-359.

McEwan, E. K. (2000). The principal’s guide to raising math achievement. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin.

McGraw-Hill Companies. (2011). TerraNova (3rd ed.). Retrieved from www.ctb.com

McSweeney, L. (2003). Assessing the math online tool: A progress report. Mathematics
and Computer Education, 37(3), 348-357.

Mitchell, T., Chen, S. Y. & Macredie, R. D. (2005). The relationship between Web
enjoyment and student perceptions and learning using a Web-based tutorial.
Learning, Media, and Technology, 30(1), 27-40.

Molnar, A. R. (1990). Computers in education: A historical perspective of the unfinished

task. T H E Journal (Technological Horizons in Education), 18(4), 80-83.

Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments.

Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 309-326.

Muir, M. (2007). Research summary: Technology and learning. Retrieved from

http://www.nmsa.org/Research/ResearchSummaries/TechnologyandStudentLearn
ing/tabid/275/Default.aspx

Nagel, D. (2007). Women lose ground in IT computer science. Retrieved from

www.campustechnology.com

National Academy of Sciences. (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential
of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Developmentally

appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth
through age eight. Retrieved from www.naeyc.org

National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Highlights from trends in international
mathematics and science study 2007: Mathematics and science achievement of
U.S. fourth and eighth-grade students in an international context. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1984). A nation at risk. Retrieved

from http://www2ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html
 123

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc. (2006). Curriculum focal points for
pre-kindergarten through grade eight, mathematics: A quest for coherence.
Reston, VA: Author.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report
of the national mathematics advisory panel. U.S. Department of Education:
Washington, DC.

National Science Foundation (NSF). (2004). Retrieved from

www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/underdeg.htm

National Science Foundation (NSF). (2006). Science and Engineering Indicators.

Retrieved from www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/

Neil, M. & Matthews, J. (2009). Does the use of technological interventions improve
student academic achievement in mathematics and language arts for an identified
group of at-risk middle school students? Southeastern Teacher Education
Journal, 2(1), 57-65.
Nguyen, D. M. (2002). Developing and evaluating the effects of web-based mathematics
Instruction and assessment on student achievement and attitude. Texas A & M
University, College Station, TX.

Nguyen, D. M., & Kulm G. (2005). Using web-based practice to enhance mathematics
learning and achievement. Journal of Interactive On-line Learning 3(1), 1–16.

Nordness, P. D., Haverkost, A., & Volberding, A. (2011). An Examination of Hand-held

computer-assisted instruction on subtraction skills for second grade students with
learning and behavioral disabilities. Journal Of Special Education Technology,
26(4), 15-24.

O’Connell, J. & Phye, G. (2005). Creating strategies for improved teaching and learning.
T.H.E. Journal, 32(12), 1-4.

Olusi, E. I. (2008). Using computer to solve mathematics by junior secondary school

students in Edo State Nigeria. College Student Journal, 42(3), 748-755.

Ortega-Tudela, J. M., & Gómez-Ariza, C. J. (2006). Computer-assisted teaching and

mathematical learning in Down Syndrome children. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 22(4), 298-307. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00179.x

Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2008). Ability differences among people who
have commensurate degrees matter for scientific creativity. Psychological
Science, 19(1), 957–961.
 124

Pashler, H., Bain, P., Bottge, B., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., & Metcalfe,
J. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER
2007-2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute
of Education Sciences, & U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://ncer.ed.gov

Pearson Digital Learning. (2006). Educators use Successmaker digital courseware system
to address individual needs. Retrieved from www.pearson.com

Petty, G., Lim, D. & Zulau, J. (2007). Training transfer between CD-ROM based
instruction and traditional classroom instruction. Journal of Technology Studies, 1
(1), 48-55.

Preckel, F., Goetz, T., Pekrun, R., Kleine, M., (2008). Gender differences in gifted and
average-ability students comparing girls’ and boys’ achievement, self-concept,
interest, and motivation in mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 149-159.
Retrieved from http://onlinesagepub.com

Prensky. M. (2001). Fun, play, and games: What makes games engaging. Digital game-
based learning, New York: McGraw-Hill.

President’s Council of Advisor on Science and Technology. (2010). Office of science and
technology policy. Retrieved from www.whitehouse.gov

Quest, N., Hyde, J., Linn, M. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in
mathematics: A meta-analysis. American Psychological Association, 136(1), 103-
127.

Ramos-Christian, V., Schleser, R., & Varn, M. E. (2008). Math fluency: Accuracy versus
speed in preoperational and concrete operational first and second grade children.
Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(1), 543-549. doi: 10.1007/s10643-008-
0234-7

Randell, T., Hall, M., Bizo, L., & Remington, B. (2007). Interactive simulation software
for training tutors of children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 37(1), 637–647.

Reed, B. (2007). Vision 2016: A blueprint for education in health information

management. Retrieved from
www.ahima.org/schools/FacResources/RESEARCHVISION.pdf

Reilly, E. D., Ralston, A., Hemmendinger, D. (2004). Encyclopedia of computer science

4th (ed). Basingstoke, Oxford: Nature Publishing.

Roberts, O. (2009). St. Lucie County Public Schools. Retrieved from

http://www.hmlt.hmco.com/downloads/Research/St-Lucie-County-Executive-
Report.pdf
 125

Robertson, J. & Lubinski, s. (2011). The development of gender achievement gaps in

mathematics and reading during elementary and middle school: Examining direct
cognitive assessments and teacher ratings. American Educational research
Journal, 48(2), 268-302.

Roblyer, M., & Doering, A. (2009). Integrating education technology into teaching.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Roschelle, J. (2003). Unlocking the learning value of wireless mobile devices. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 19(3), 260–272.

Roschelle, J., Pea, R., Hoadley, C., Gordin, D., & Means, B. (2000). Changing how and
what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. The Future of
Children, 10(2), 76–101.

Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, Empson, S. Jennifer
Knudsen, J., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Integration of technology, curriculum, and
paraprofessional development for advancing middle school mathematics: Three
large-scale studies. Retrieved from http://aer.sagepub.com/content/47/4/833
Roschelle, J., Singleton, C., Sabelli, N., Pea, R., & Bransford, J. D. (2008). Mathematics
worth knowing, resources worth growing, research worth noting: A response to
the National Mathematics Advisory Panel Report. Educational Researcher, 37(1),
610-617.

Roth, C. E. (1992). Environmental Literacy: Its roots, evolution and directions in the
1990s. Columbus: The Ohio State University.

Rowley, K. (2005). Inquiry into practices of expert courseware designers. Journal of

Educational Computing Research, 33(4), 419-449.

Ru-De, L. (2010). Psychological research in educational technology in China. British

Journal of Technology, 41(4), 593-606.

Sadker, D., & Sibler, E. S. (2007). Preface. In D. Sadker, & E. S. Sibler (Eds.). Gender in
the classroom: Foundations, skills, methods, and strategies across the
curriculum. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sander, P., Coates, D., King, M., & Stevenson, K. (2000). University students’
expectations of teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 2(3), 309–23.

Scafidi, T. & Bui, K. (2010). Gender similarities in math performance from middle
school through high school. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(3), 252-255.
Retrieved from www.sagepub.com
 126

Scher, D. (2005). Square or not? Assessing constructions in an interactive geometry

software environment. In W. J. Masalski, & P. C. Elliott (Eds.), Technology-
supported mathematics learning environments: Sixty-seventh yearbook (pp. 113-
124). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM).

Schoppek, W., & Tulis, M. (2010). Enhancing arithmetic and word-problem solving
skills efficiently by individualized computer-assisted practice. Journal of
Educational Research, 103(4), 239-252.

Science and Technology Communications (2010). Research and advancements resource.

Retrieved from www.msft.org.

Sheehan, M. & Nillas, L. (20100. Technology integration in secondary mathematics

classrooms: Effects on students’ understanding. Journal of Technology
Integration in the Classroom, 2(3), 67-83.

Shelly, R. (2002). Designing math labs to accommodate advanced standards and

technology. NASSP Bulletin, 86(1), 45-61.

Shinn, M. R. (2004). Best practices in using curriculum based measurement in a problem

solving model. Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Sitzmann, T. (2011). A meta-analytic examination of the instructional effectiveness of

computer-based simulation games. Personnel Psychology, 64(1), 489-528.

Slavin, R. & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best

synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 427-515.

Smith, C., Marchand-Martella, N., & Martella, R. (2011). Assessing the effects of the
rocket math program with a primary elementary school student at risk for school
failure: A case study. Education and Treatment of Children, 34(2), 247-258.

Smith, K. (2009). The effect of computer assisted instruction and field independence on
the development of rhythm sight-reading skills of middle school instrumental
students. International Journal of Music Education. Retrieved from
http://ijmsagepub.com/content/27/1/59

Solomon, J. & Rusev, P. (2008). Early acquisition of computer science. Retrieved from
www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu

Souter, M. T. (2001). Integrating technology into the mathematics classroom: An action

research study. Action Research Exchange, 1(1). Retrieved from
http://teach.valdosta.edu/are/Artmanscrpt/vol1no1/souter_am.pdf
 127

Spradlin, K. & Ackerman, B. (2009). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction

in developmental mathematics. Journal of Developmental Education, 34 (2), 12-
19.

Springer, R. M., Pugalee, D., & Algozzine, B. (2007). Improving mathematics skills in
high school students. Clearing House, 8(1), 37–44.
Steinberg, E. (1991). Teaching computers to teach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Stevens, L. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stone, J. R., Alfeld, C., Pearson, D., Lewis, M. V., & Jensen, S. (2006). Building
academic skills in context: Testing the value of enhanced math learning in CTE.
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

Su, R., Rounds, J., & Armstrong, P. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A
meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135(1), 859–
884.

Suppes, P. (1996). The uses of computer in education. Scientific American, 215(1), 206-
220. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

Suppes, P. (1998). Computer assisted instruction. The Encyclopedia of Educational

Media Communications and Technology (2nd ed.), 107-116. New York:
Greenwood Press.

Suppes, P., & Zanotti, M. (1996). Foundations of Probability: Selected Papers, 1974 –
1995. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tai, R. H., Qi Liu, C., Maltese, A. V., & Fan, X. (2006). Career choice enhanced:
Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312(1), 1143–1144.

Tennyson, R., & Jorczak, R. (2008). A conceptual framework for the empirical study of
instructional games. In O’Neil, H. and Perez, R. (Eds.), Computer games and
team and individual learning (pp. 39–54). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Terlecki, M.S., Newcombe, N. S., & Little, M. (2007). Durable and generalized effects of
spatial experience on mental rotation: Gender differences in growth patterns.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(1), 996–1013.

Tezel, F. (1999). The Effect of type a personality characteristic on student achievement.

Published Master Thesis, Hacettepe University Institute of Social Science,
Ankara.
 128

Tienken, C. H., & Wilson, M. J. (2007). The impact of computer-assisted instruction on

seventh grade students' mathematics achievement. Planning and Changing, 38(1),
181-190.

Tienken, C. & Maher, J. (2008). The influence of computer assisted instruction on eighth
grade mathematics achievement. Research in Middle Level Education Online,
32(3), 1-13.

Tindall, T. & Hamil, B. (2003). Gender disparity in science education: The causes,
consequences and solution. Education, 125(2), 282-295.

Tran, N. & Nathan, M. (2010). Pre-college engineering studies: An investigation of the

relationship between pre-college engineering studies and student achievement in
science and mathematics. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 143-157.
Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.

Traynor, P. (2003). The effects of computer-assisted instruction on different learners.

Journal of Instructional of Psychology, 30(2), 137-151.

Trenholm, S. (2oo6). A study on the efficacy of computer-mediated developmental math

instruction for traditional community college students. Research & Teaching in
Developmental Education, 22(20), 51-62.

Tucker, J. (2009). Benchmarking usage statistics in collection management decision for

serials. Articles. Paper 19. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.library.unlv.edu/lib_articles/19

U. S. Department of Education. (2004). No Child Left Behind Act. Washington: United

Government Printing Office.

U. S. Department of Education. (2006). National education technology plan 2004:

Toward a new golden age in American education. Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/os/technology/paln/2004/site/edlitebackgrou
nd.html

U. S. Department of Education. (2008). National educational technology trends study:

Local-level data summary. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation and
Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service.

U. S. Department of Education, Budget Office. (2003). FY 2003 Education budget

summary. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov

Vincent, J. (2005). Interactive geometry software and mechanical linkages: Scaffolding

students’ deductive reasoning. In W. J. Masalski, & P. C. Elliott (Eds.),
Technology-supported learning environments: Sixty-seventh yearbook (pp. 93-
112). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM).
 129

Vockell, Edward. (1990). Instructional principles behind computer use. Computer

Teacher, 18(1), 10-15.

Vogel, J., Vogel, D. S., Cannon-Bowers, J., Bowers, C., Muse, K., & Wright, M. (2006).
Computer gaming and interactive simulations for learning: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(1), 229–243.

Volery, T. (2001). Online education: An exploratory study into success factors.

Journal of Educational Computing Research 24(1), 77–92.

Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains:
Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its
importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 817–835.

Wallace, R. C. (2004). A framework for understanding teaching with the Internet.

American Educational Research Journal, 41(1), 447–488.

Watson, P. (1972). Using the Computer in Education. Englewood, NJ: Educational

Technology Publications.

Weiss, I., Kramarski, B., & Talis, S. (2006). Effects of multimedia environments on
kindergarten children's mathematical achievements and style of learning.
Educational Media International, 43(1), 3-17.

Wells, J., & Lewis, L. (2006). Internet access in U.S. public schools and classrooms:
1994–2005 (NCES 2007–020). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007020.pdf

Wenglinsky, H. (2005). Using technology wisely: The keys to success in schools (M. C.
Linn, Ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Wood, R., Griffiths, M., Parke, A. (2007). Experiences of time loss among videogame
players: An empirical study. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 10(1), 38–44.

Wong, K. K., & Rutledge, S. (2008). System wide efforts to improve student achievement.
Charlotte, NC: IAP.

Xin, J. F. (1999). Computer-assisted cooperative learning in integrated classrooms for

students with and without disabilities. Information Technology in Childhood
Education, 61-78.

Yalcinalp, S., Geban, O., & Ozkan, I. (1995). Effectiveness of using computer-assisted
supplementary instruction for teaching the mole concept. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 32(10), 1083-95.
 130

Yee, N. (2007). Motivations of play in online games. Journal of Cyber Psychology and
Behavior, 9(1), 772-775.

Ysseldyke, J. E., & McLeod, S. (2007). Using technology tools to monitor response to
intervention. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. VanderHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of
response to intervention (pp. 396–407). New York, NY: Springer.

Zbiek, R. M., Heid, M. K., Blume, G. W., & Dick, T. P. (2007). Research on technology
in mathematics education: A perspective of constructs. In F. Lester (Ed.), Second
handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1169-1208).
Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers on Mathematics.

Zinn, K. (1973). Contributions of computing to college teaching and learning activities at

the University of Michigan. Report to the Communications Review Committee,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Center for Research on Learning and
Teaching.
 131

Appendices
 132

Appendix A:

Math Pretest/Posttest

Released Test Questions Math Grade 2

Multiple Choice
Identify the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question.

1. A NUMBER HAS NINE ONES, SIX TENS, AND EIGHT HUNDREDS. WHAT
IS THE NUMBER?

A. 869
B. 896
C. 968
D. 986

2. WHAT IS THE VALUE OF THE FIVE IN FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX

(526)?

A. 5
B. 50
C. 500
D. 5000

3. LOOK AT THE NUMBER 926. WHICH DIGIT IS IN THE TENS PLACE?

A. 2
B. 6
C. 9
D. 10

4. WHICH DIGIT IS IN THE ONES PLACE IN THE NUMBER TWO

HUNDRED THIRTY-FOUR (234)?

A. 1
B. 2
C. 3
D. 4
 133

5. WHICH NUMBER HAS A SEVEN IN THE HUNDREDS PLACE AND A

THREE IN THE ONES PLACE?

A. 37
B. 73
C. 347
D. 743

6. WHAT IS ANOTHER NAME FOR 400 PLUS 48?

A. 4408
B. 448
C. 400408
D. 4048

7. WHAT IS ANOTHER WAY TO WRITE 987?

A. 900 + 87 + 7
B. 980 + 70 + 0
C. 700 + 80 + 9
D. 900 + 80 + 7

8. WHAT IS ANOTHER WAY TO WRITE 370?

A. 3 + 70
B. 30 + 70
C. 300 + 7
D. 300 + 70

9. WHICH NUMBER SENTENCE IS TRUE?

A. 359 < 375

B. 359 > 375
C. 359 < 359
D. 359 > 359
 134

10. WHICH NUMBER GOES IN THE BOX?

386 < < 521

A. 297
B. 334
C. 410
D. 528

11. WHICH SIGN MAKES THE NUMBER SENTENCE TRUE?

22 + 10  32

A. =
B. +
C. >
D. <

12. WHICH NUMBER GOES IN THE BOX?

91>

A. 90
B. 92
C. 93
D. 94

13. WHICH SIGN MAKES A TRUE NUMBER SENTENCE?

6-2

A. >
B. =
C. <
D. –

14. WHICH NUMBER SENTENCE IS TRUE?

A. 307 = 370
B. 307 > 307
C. 370 < 370
D. 307 < 370
 135

15. SOPHIE DID THIS SUBTRACTION PROBLEM. WHICH ADDITION

PROBLEM SHOWS THAT SHE GOT THE RIGHT ANSWER?

85 – 44 = 41

A. 41+ 85
B. 44 + 85
C. 41+ 44
D. 44 + 44

16. WHICH OF THESE CAN BE USED TO CHECK THE ANSWER TO THE

PROBLEM?
4 +=3 7

A. 7 + 3 = 10
B. 2+5=7
C. 7–4=3
D. 10 – 3 = 7

17. WHICH NUMBER SENTENCE IS AN OPPOSITE NUMBER SENTENCE

FOR EIGHT PLUS SIX EQUALS FOURTEEN?

86 +=14

A. 21+ 2 = 14
B. 7 + 7 = 14
C. 8–2=6
D. 14 − 8 = 6

18. LOOK AT THE TWO PROBLEMS IN THE BOX. THE SAME NUMBER IS
MISSING IN BOTH OF THEM. WHAT IS THE MISSING NUMBER?

65 –  = 60 60 +  = 65

A. 125
B. 15
C. 5
D. 0

19. WHAT IS THE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM?

419 – 12 =

A. 431
B. 421
C. 417
D. 407
 136

20. 123 + 7 =

A. 50
B. 140
C. 144
D. 150

21. TONI HAD SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY-NINE (759) CUCUMBERS. SHE

SOLD FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY- THREE (563) OF THEM. HOW MANY
CUCUMBERS DOES TONI HAVE LEFT?

A. 116
B. 196
C. 216
D. 296

22. WHAT IS TWO HUNDRED FIFTEEN PLUS FIFTY-SEVEN?

215 + 57

A. 158
B. 262
C. 271
D. 272

23. WHAT IS THE SOLUTION TO THIS PROBLEM?

410 + 94

A. 514
B. 504
C. 494
D. 404

24. WHICH DRAWING SHOWS THREE TIMES FIVE?

3X5

   

   
  



A B C D
 137

25. DAVID READS TWO PAGES EVERY

FIVE MINUTES. HOW MANY PAGES
WILL DAVID HAVE READ AFTER
TWENTY-FIVE MINUTES?

Minutes 5 10 15 20 25
Pages 2 4 6 8

A. 9 PAGES
B. 10 PAGES
C. 11 PAGES
D. 12 PAGES

26. WHICH CHOICE IS THE SAME AS THE NUMBER SENTENCE

SHOWN?
5+5+5+5+5+5+5+5=

A. 6x5
B. 7x5
C. 8x5
D. 9x5

27. KAYLA HAS FIFTEEN STRAWBERRIES. SHE WILL GIVE FOUR

STRAWBERRIES TO EACH OF HER THREE FRIENDS. HOW MANY
STRAWBERRIES WILL BE LEFT FOR KAYLA?

A. 1
B. 2
C. 3
D. 4

28. IF THERE ARE TWELVE COOKIES, HOW MANY CAN THREE CHILDREN
SHARE EQUALLY?

A. 4
B. 3
C. 5
D. 6
 138

29. THERE ARE TWENTY- ONE SHELLS. THE SHELLS ARE EQUALLY
DIVIDED AMONG THREE STUDENTS. HOW MANY SHELLS WILL EACH
STUDENT GET?

A. 6
B. 7
C. 8
D. 9

30. THREE FRIENDS HAVE EIGHTEEN JELLY BEANS ALL TOGETHER.

THEY WANT TO SHARE THE JELLY BEANS EQUALLY. HOW MANY
JELLY BEANS SHOULD EACH FRIEND GET?

A. 3
B. 4
C. 5
D. 6

31. THERE ARE NINE BENCHES IN A PARK. THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE
SITTING ON EACH BENCH. HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE SITTING ON THE
NINE BENCHES ALL TOGETHER?

A. 11
B. 14
C. 16
D. 18

32. THERE WERE TEN FROGS IN A POND. EACH FROG HAD FOUR
LEGS. HOW MANY FROG LEGS WERE THERE ALL TOGETHER?

A. 14
B. 40
C. 50
D. 104

33. WHICH NUMBER SHOWS THE ANSWER TO FIVE TIMES SIX?

A. 11
B. 25
C. 30
D. 35
 139

34. ONE BEACH BALL COSTS TWO DOLLARS. HOW MUCH WILL FIVE
BEACH BALLS COST?

A. $10
B. $12
C. $14
D. $16

35. WHAT FRACTIONAL PART OF THIS FIGURE IS SHADED?


A. 1
8
B. 1
7
C. 1
4
D. 1
2

36. WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING FRACTIONS IS THE GREATEST?

A. 1
9
B. 1
2
C. 1
5
D. 1
10

37. LOOK AT THE FRACTION BARS. WHICH FRACTION BAR SHOWS ONE-
SIXTH SHADED?

A. 
B. 
C. 
D. 
 140

38. CHOOSE THE LETTER IN WHICH ONE-FIFTH OF THE TRIANGLE IS

DARKENED?

A. 
B. 
C. 
D. 

39. WHAT FRACTION OF THIS SHAPE IS SHADED?



A. 1
2
B. 2
3
C. 3
2
D. 3
1

40. WHAT FRACTION OF THE STICKERS ARE HAPPY FACE STICKERS?


A. 3
5
B. 5
3
C. 3
8
D. 8
3
 141

41. WHAT FRACTION OF THE CIRCLE IS SHADED?


A. 1
4
B. 1
3
C. 3
4
D. 4
3

42. WHICH FRACTION IS EQUAL TO ONE WHOLE?

A. 1
3
B. 1
8
C. 2
3
D. 8
8

43. A TEACHER DIVIDES A WHOLE CLASS INTO GROUPS TO WORK ON A

CLASS PROJECT. EACH GROUP HAS ONE-SIXTH OF ALL THE
CHILDREN IN THE CLASS. HOW MANY GROUPS ARE THERE?

A. 2
B. 6
C. 7
D. 12

44. LOOK AT THE TRIANGLES. WHICH GROUP OF TRIANGLES IS SHADED

TO SHOW ONE WHOLE?

A. 
B. 
C. 
D. 
 142

45. WHICH FRACTION IS EQUAL TO ONE?

A. 1
12
B. 6
12
C. 12
12
D. 100
12

46. MONIQUE HAS FOUR QUARTERS, TWO DIMES, AND ONE NICKEL.
HOW MUCH MONEY DOES SHE HAVE?

A. $1.25
B. $1.05
C. $0.75
D. $1.45

47. JENA HAS ONE DOLLAR AND FORTY CENTS. WHICH AMOUNT OF
MONEY IS GREATER THAN WHAT JENA HAS?

A. $1.30
B. $1.50
C. $1.25
D. $1.05

48. SHAMIKA IS SAVING MONEY TO BUY A BOOK. SHE HAS SAVED ONE
FIVE-DOLLAR BILL, THREE ONE-DOLLAR BILLS, ONE QUARTER,
THREE DIMES, AND FOUR NICKELS. HOW MUCH MONEY DOES SHE
HAVE SO FAR?

A. $7.95
B. $8.75
C. $8.55
D. $7.75
 143

49. A PAD OF PAPER COSTS TWENTY-FIVE CENTS. TAMI GAVE THE

CLERK THREE DIMES TO BUY A PAD OF PAPER. HOW MUCH CHANGE
TAMI SHOULD GET BACK?

A. $.01
B. $0.25
C. $.05
D. $1.00

50. COURTNEY HAS ONE DOLLAR AND TEN CENTS. IF SHE GIVES THE
CLERK FIFTY CENTS, HOW MUCH MONEY WILL SHE HAVE LEFT?

A. $0.60
B. $0.80
C. $0.90
D. $1.10
 144

Appendix B:

Math Pretest/Posttest

Released Test Questions Math Grade 3

Multiple Choice
Identify the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question.

1. How is eight thousand, seventy-six written in standard form?

A. 8067
B. 8076
C. 8706
D. 8760

2. Which of the following is the same as 8024?

A. eight hundred twenty-four

B. eight thousand twenty-four
C. eight thousand two hundred four
D. eighty thousand two hundred four

3. Which set of numbers is in order from greatest to least?

A. 147, 163, 234, 275

B. 275, 234, 163, 147
C. 275, 163, 234, 147
D. 163, 275, 234, 147

4. Which number has a 4 in the tens place and a 4 in the hundreds place?

A. 6424
B. 6244
C. 4462
D. 6442

5. Which digit is in the hundreds place in the number 3174?

A. 1
B. 3
C. 4
D. 7
 145

6. What does the 3 represent in the number 3051?

A. 3
B. 30
C. 300
D. 3000

7. Which of these is eight hundred seven?

A. 8007
B. 870
C. 807
D. 8070

8. Which number has the same digit in both the ones place and the hundreds place?

A. 3308
B. 4118
C. 5977
D. 6242

9. What is 1413 rounded to the nearest hundred?

A. 1000
B. 1400
C. 1410
D. 1500

10. Sophie has 527 seashells in her collection. Which of these equals 527?

A. 5+2+7
B. 5 + 20 + 700
C. 500 + 20 + 7
D. 500 + 200 + 70

11. Which number is 4000 + 80+5?

A. 458
B. 485
C. 4085
D. 4805
 146

12. Which number means 1000 + 600 + 8?

A. 168
B. 1068
C. 1608
D. 1680

13. Which fraction below is equal to 1?

4
A.  = 3
8

B.  = 2
8

C.  = 2
6

D.  = 1
6

14. 1 + 2 =
4 4

A. 6
6
B. 2
6
C. 2
3
D. 3
4

15. A pie was divided into fifths. Emily ate 1 of the pie. Tony ate 2 of the pie.
5 5
Jenny ate 1 of the pie. How much of the pie was left?
5

A. 4
5
B. 3
5
C. 2
5
D. 1
5
 147

16. Jorge is making gelatin. He adds of a 2 cup of hot water to a bowl. Then he adds 1
3 3
of a cup of cold water. How much water does he add all together?

A. 1 of a cup of
3
B. 3 of a cup of water
6
C. 1 cup of water
D. 3 cups of water

17. What is the difference?

5–4
6 6

A. 1
6
B. 1
3
C. 1
2
D. 5
6

18. Reggie compared the prices of two radios. The table below shows the prices.

Brand Cost
A $31.47
B $34.71

How much more does Brand B cost than Brand A?

A. $3.24
B. $3.26
C. $3.34
D. $3.36

19. Adam has $5.00 to buy an airplane that costs $4.28. How much change should he get back?

A. $0.70
B. $0.72
C. $0.75
D. $0.82
 148

20. Carmen bought these three things.

One rag doll---$4.10

One box of crayon--$3.45
One tennis ball--$1.75

A. $9.30
B. $9.20
C. $8.30
D. $8.20

21. Lisa rented 4 videotapes for $4.80. How much did each tape cost to rent?

A. $1.20
B. $8.80
C. $12.00
D. $19.20

22. Four children earned $50 from selling cookies. They decided to divide the money
equally. How much money did each of the four children get?

A. $10.00
B. $12.50
C. $46.00
D. $125.00

23. If each ball costs $1.54, how much must Kyoko pay for three balls?

A. $4.62
B. $15.40
C. $31.53
D. $46.20
 149

24. Donna shaded 1 of the figure.

10



A. 0.01
B. 0.1
C. 0.110
D. 1.0

25. 9000 – 3782 =

A. 5218
B. 5328
C. 6782
D. 12,782

26. Look at the number sentence below.

67 +  = 121
Which number will make the number sentence true?

A. 54
B. 56
C. 64
D. 68

27. Which number is 6 more than 1026?

A. 1022
B. 1032
C. 1122
D. 1132
 150

28. The town of Milburg has 5256 grown-ups and 2987 children. How many people live in
Milburg?

A. 7133
B. 8133
C. 8243
D. 8343

29. 502 – 273 = 

A. 229
B. 239
C. 371
D. 775

30. There were 3409 pieces of candy in a jar. If 145 pieces were red and the rest were blue,
how many were blue?

A. 3244
B. 3264
C. 3344
D. 3364

31. The figure below is a model for the multiplication sentence.

8x4=
Which division sentence is modeled by the same figure?

A. 8 ÷ 4=2
B. 12 ÷ 4 = 3
C. 24 ÷ 8 = 3
D. 32 ÷ 8 = 4
 151

32. Lily did this division problem.

375 ÷ 25 = 15
Which problem could she do to check her answer?

A. 25 + 15 =
B. 25 – 15 =
C. 25 x 15 =
D. 25 ÷ 15 =

33. Reese and Jay each correctly used a different number sentence to solve the same
problem. Reese used this number sentence:

13 x 4 = 52
Which of the following number sentences could Jay have used?

A. 13 + 4 = 17
B. 52 – 13 = 39
C. 52 ÷ 4 = 13
D. 13 ÷ 52 = 4

34. A company has 6 big trucks. Each truck has 18 wheels. How many wheels is this in all?

A. 24
B. 96
C. 108
D. 116

35. On Friday, 1250 people visited the zoo. Three times as many people visited on Saturday
than on Friday. How many people visited the zoo on Saturday?

A. 3615
B. 3650
C. 3750
D. 3753
 152

36. Third-grade students went to a concert in 8 buses. Each bus took 45 students. How many
students went to the concert?

A. 320
B. 360
C. 380
D. 3240

37. There are 124 students making 3 stars each for the school wall. How many stars will they
make all together?

A. 127
B. 357
C. 362
D. 372

38. How much is nine times four hundred fifty-eight?

A. 4042
B. 4122
C. 4311
D. 4589

39. Six students were sitting at each table in the lunch room. There are 34 tables. How many
students were sitting at each table in the lunch room?

A. 208
B. 204
C. 188
D. 1,824

40. 1857 x 5 =

A. 5055
B. 9055
C. 9235
D. 9285
 153

41. During Field Day, 1624 students from Glen Hill School were equally divided into 8
different events. How many students were in each event?

A. 203
B. 206
C. 221
D. 224

42. Jason has 225 rocks in his rock collection. He divides the rock into five equal piles. How
many rocks are in each pile?

A. 40
B. 45
C. 50
D. 55

43. What number can be multiplied by 5768 to give the answer 5768?

5768 x  = 5768

A. 0
B. 1
C. 2
D. 10

44. Which number sentence is true?

A. 275 ÷ 1 = 275 x 0
B. 275 ÷ 1 = 275 x 1
C. 275 ÷ 275 = 275 x 1
D. 275 ÷ 275 = 275 x 275

45. Mr. Brown bought 6 towels. All the towels were the same price. The total cost was $84.
How much money did each towel cost?

A. $11
B. $14
C. $78
D. $504
 154

46. Tony had $20. He paid $8 for a ticket to a baseball game. At the game, he bought a hot
dog for $3. What amount of money did Tony have then?

A. $5
B. $9
C. $11
D. $15

47. In one week, an airplane pilot flew 1134 miles on Tuesday and 1475 miles on Thursday.
If the pilot flies the same number of miles 3 weeks in a row, how many miles does he fly
in all?

A. 3402
B. 4425
C. 6818
D. 7827

48. Mr. Guzman bought 48 doughnuts packed equally into 4 boxes. Which number sentence
shows how to find the number of doughnuts in each box?

A. 48 – 4 = 
B. 48 ÷ 4 = 
C. 48 + 4 = 
D. 48 x 4 = 

49. The Sumata family took a five-day vacation by car. Each day they drove 250 miles.
Which number sentence could be used to find out how many total miles they drove?

A. 250 + 5 = 
B. 250 – 5 = 
C. 250 x 5 = 
D. 250 ÷ 5 = 

50. If Mai bought apples for $250 and she paid it with a $10 bill, which expression shows the
correct amount of change?

A. $10 + $2.50
B. $10 - $2.50
C. $10 x $2.50
D. $10 ÷ $2.50
 155

Appendix C:

Informed Consent

April 16, 2012

Dear Parent or Guardian,

I am a graduate student in the education department of Northcentral University. I am

conducting a research study to determine the effects of Computer-Assisted Instruction on
student achievement in mathematics. I request permission for your child to participate.
My Supervising faculty mentor is Dr. Dana Cleghorn and she can be reached via email at
dcleghorn@my.ncu.edu or via telephone at (205) 680-8160.

The study consists of three phases. In Phase I, I will give a pretest to determine
your child’s math ability on math concepts, depending on his/her grade level. Phase II
will be the implementation of Mad Dog Math or traditional math for 10 weeks. Phase III
will consist of a posttest of your child’s math ability after going through the Phase II
implementation. The research study will be explained in terms that your child will
understand, and your child will participate only if he or she is willing to do so. Only
members of the research staff and I will have access to information from and about your
child. At the end of the research study, all of the results will be presented to you. Your
child’s identity in this research study will be anonymous and all information regarding
him/her will be kept confidential.

Participation in this study is voluntary and your decision will not affect the services
normally provided to your child by Gardena Valley Christian School. Your child’s
participation in this research study will not lead to the loss of any benefits to which your
child otherwise is entitled to receive. Even if you give your permission for your child to
participate, your child is free to decline participation. If your child agrees to participate,
he/she is free to end participation at any time. You and your child are not waiving any
legal claims, rights, or remedies because of your child’s participation in this research
project.

Should you have any questions or desire further information, please call me at (310) 327-
4987, or e-mail me at room108@gvcs.net. Please complete and return page two of this
letter to your child’s teacher.

Sincerely,

Miriam Cohen
Graduate Student
Northcentral University
 156

Appendix D:

Parent/Researcher Commitment Agreement

I, __________________________agree to allow my child _______________________

to participate in the study of Examination of Technology Integration in a Metropolitan
Elementary Education Program by Mrs. Miriam Cohen at Gardena Valley Christian
School in Gardena, California. The researcher will provide all necessary materials,
supervise the student throughout the procedure, and record the progress.

In addition, consent is granted to allow pre-and-post testing for my child. The

parents/guardian agrees not to implement specialized math instruction for the student
until the completion of the study.

I have read the above and understand the contents.

__________________________________
Print Name
 157

Appendix E:

Child Assent Form

The Examination of Technology Integration in a

Metropolitan Elementary Mathematics Education Program

I would like to invite you to take part in this study. I am asking you because you are
currently a second or a third grade student at Gardena Valley Christian School.

The reason for this study is to compare the math scores of students receiving the regular
classroom teaching only versus the regular classroom teaching plus the use of the
computer.

The reason I am doing this study is to investigate if this way of studying math may help
you and other students improve their overall scores.

Your parents will also be asked to give permission for you to take part in this study.
Please talk it over with your parents before you decide to agree to participate. You do not
have to be in this study if you do not want to and it will not affect your grade. If you
decide to participate in this study, you can stop at any time.

If you have any questions at any time, please ask Mrs. Cohen or your teacher.

IF YOU SIGN THIS FORM, IT MEANS THAT YOU AGREED TO PARTICIPATE

AND HAVE READ EVERYTHING THAT IS ON THIS FORM. YOU AND YOUR
PARENTS WILL BE GIVEN A COPY OF THIS FORM TO KEEP.

_________________________________ ____________________
Student Signature Date

PRIMARY INVESTIGATOR
Mrs. Miriam Cohen
(310) 327-4987